----- Original Message ---- Jed Rothwell wrote: > Coal produces about ~50% of U.S. electricity and nukes ~20%. I wouldbuild > ~100 more nukes, bringing their contribution up to around 40% oftotal > electricity, and I would add the equivalent of 100 nukes in windpower and/or > solar. That would replace nearly all coal.
France gets 80% from nuclear now! There is little reason that we could get more than 40%- even if we must hire the French to show us how, right Michel? ;-) At any rate, the best way to accomplish this goal over time, IMHO - although it is never done this way, would be to phase-in nuclear power by adding capacity adjoining the existing site of a coal plant. There are large potential advantages for this, if done correctly, but problems as well. Some of the infrastructure (transformers and power lines and cooling towers) is interchangeable and already in place at the coal plant, but the big advantage would be in the balancing act - the "mix" needed to meet peak demands for day time and especially the peak for summer air conditioning.. Nuclear plants need to be run continuously 7/24, and are best for the "baseline" -- BUT -- although coal does not absolutely "need" to be run continuously 7/24 like nuclear, in practice you cannot just shut down a coal plant at night- since it takes too much energy and causes too much stress on the mechanical parts to cycle the temperature back and forth daily. However, if you have a nuclear plant next door you can accomplish two things at the same time. First, at night time, you can come far close to a shut down the coal-side, and only burn coal to meet peak daytime demand. You get closer to doing this by channeling waste heat from the nuclear side back to the coal plant at night, instead of condensing it - in order to keep everything warm. But second, you can - with proper engineering during peak hours of demand, use some of the higher heat potential of coal combustion to raise the steam temperature on the nuclear side, and thereby get a few extra percent of Carnot spread. A third HUGE advantage would be if you were able to use the CO2 from the coal exhaust to grow algae. Obviously, nighttime coal burning doesn't help, but if the operator could only use the coal to meet peak daytime demand, and also to grow high-lipid algae, with which to burn INSTEAD of the coal, then everything is more efficient, and you have two layers of synergy. Maybe this is being done somewhere already. It seems too obvious to be overlooked, unless I am missing something. Jones
