letters

Nuclear Family

TO THE EDITOR: As a Texas Aggie, class of 1955, with an M.S. in 1956, I got a job with Westinghouse Electric Co. in Pittsburgh. They put me to work on nuclear power plants and I loved it. Then I went on to school and got my Ph.D. some years later. At Texas A&M, I joined ASME and I have been a firm member ever since.

What I want to know is why do you not print any articles on the virtues of nuclear power plants. After all, the Earth is running out of oil. More nuclear power plants also would provide a great deal of employment for mechanical engineers.

In short, we need more nuclear power plants or anything else that does not use oil.

— Robert Lea Cloud
Staunton, Va.

How Much in Job Years?

TO THE EDITOR: One must add "Mad Economics" to the title of the article "New Energy, New Jobs" (June 2004). The notion of adding job-years to every GWh produced to create an economic bonus is perverse thinking. High job-year per unit of output indicates economic inefficiency, not high efficiency. It is also an incomplete indicator.

The Berkeley researcher doesn't believe me? Well then, here is my modest proposal to improve the economy using the exact same methods: Making a loaf of bread costs about five minutes in labor in today's automated world. Let's turn the clock back and make breadmaking into an intensive manual process so that it takes two or three hours. This will create jobs.

There will be more than enough Little Red Hen breadmaking work for everyone in this new economy—including for engineers. The only catch is that everyone must work long hours to afford to eat a basic commodity.

The Berkeley researcher retorts that these are "quality family income" job-years, not Little Red Hen jobs. If that's the case, let's add up the numbers from your article at $50,000 per job-year and divide by the 100,000 MWh output:

• Coal and gas—11 job-years, or $5.50 per MWh.
• Biomass—33 job-years, or $16.50 per MWh.
• Wind—100 job-years, or $50 per MWh.
• Photovoltaics—121 job-years, or $60.50 per MWh.

Look at any wholesale power exchange and you'll see prices around the $50 per MWh mark. In other words, wholesale prices for electricity need to double to pay for the extra job-years. Certainly renewables have a valuable place in the energy mix; however, the flawed arguments crafted in this article only hurt the cause.

— John Grieco
Calgary, Alberta

A Feeble Wind

TO THE EDITOR: I'm for any power source that is safe, economical, and reliable, that can contribute to our diversity of supply, and is environmentally friendly. Wind power is certainly environmentally friendly and can assist our supply diversity. Conversely, articles should cover the pros and cons of any energy source. I believe "Wind in the Pipeline" (March 2004) is a bit slanted.

The article implies that with government monetary support of 1.5 cents/kWh and maybe another 1.5 cents to eliminate penalties associated with wind's variable output, wind power can be economical. If you compare 1.5 cents/kWh to 1,000 MW output—the output of a large nuclear unit—U.S. taxpayers will supply about $108 million per year to support 1,000 MW of wind power. This is about 87 percent of the total operating cost of a nuclear plant.

The site requirements for a nuclear unit can be measured in acres. The wind turbines needed to produce the same power output of the nuke require 200 to 300 square miles. Very likely this land will not be utilized for homes, offices, or plants due to noise and access to the wind turbines. If we assume that the land use can be acquired or rented for a low $200 per acre, 250 square miles will cost $32 million.

If one of the objectives of wind power is to improve the environment, we should consider the recent action in France. France closed its last remaining coal mine. With 80 percent of the electric power supplied by uranium, France no longer needs coal. France has the lowest-cost electricity rates of major European countries and the nukes do not produce greenhouse gas.

Renewables can help, but in limited applications. Wind and solar are less than 0.5 percent of our electrical energy supply. It is not likely that they will replace much of the 70 percent of our power supplied by coal and uranium.

— Paul C. Williams
Medina, Ohio

Turbine Talk

TO THE EDITOR: I came across some very interesting articles by Lee Langston on gas turbines in back issues. These articles were very perceptive and helped me in understanding the market better. I thank your magazine for publishing such articles and look forward to seeing more insightful material written by Langston.

— T.R. Sudharshan
Chennai, India

Return to Index