Letters to the Editor
To read more letters,
visit solartoday.org
More Arguments
Against Nuclear
I read the May/June issue Letter to the
Editor, “Nuclear Energy, or Not?” and the
good response of John Reynolds. He gave
convincing arguments but missed the essential points. Here they are in my response to
this subject:
There are many arguments against nuclear,
all of them valid, but two of the most important ones need to be more emphasized: It is
too expensive, and it takes too long.
To explain: In order to produce so called
“clean nuclear plants,” they need to be high-neutron energy modified-breeder (so-called
plutonium burner) reactors that
work with molten sodium and can
reuse ordinary uranium rods in a
multiple-throughput process time
and time again until the long-lived
isotope residues are reduced to a
small fraction. This process is relatively safe and with precaution one
can avoid sidetracking the plutonium for nuclear bombs that is created in between as long as these are
not reprocessed. These sequential
plants are much more expensive
than the current types of nuclear
plants that already exceed the cost
of windmill parks of the same peak
power rating. Leave alone the time lag
expected to be at least 2020, as Reynolds
pointed out, but even if one contemplates to
go ahead in the meantime with conventional water-based plants, it takes almost a
decade to produce a significant amount of
such plants, while a wind park producing in
excess of 1.8 gigawatt (more than a single
nuclear power plant) in Texas took less than
eight months in 2006. During 2007 the total
wind plant peak power in the world exceeded the peak power capacity of all nuclear
power plants in France; by now it also
exceeds the nuclear power capacity in the
United States. (See F.N. von Hippel, Scientific
American, May 2008, pp. 88-93.)
Also there is no need for substantial electric energy storage for wind, since for years
to come, surplus energy can easily be used
to produce energy-consuming chemicals
like hydrogen or aluminum at the site. That
counters the argument occasionally used
against wind power plants that would produce surplus energy at times.
Karl W. Böer, Ph.D.
Avondale, Pa.
solpax@aol.com
Not All ZEHs Will Be Electric
I could not agree more with the argument in John Reynolds’ January/February
column that every zero-energy home (ZEH)
should include a solar water-heating system.
(See “First Comes Energy Awareness.”) With
less upfront cost, less collector area, more
greenhouse gas reduction and shorter payback, SWH deserves serious consideration at
any ZEH design charrette. Despite this, SWH
installations remain at near-stagnation levels
while photovoltaics (PV) garners all the attention. For homes with electric water heaters
(roughly half of those in the United States),
installing a PV system without a SWH system
CENTEX
A reader asks, why not fuel-switching conver-
sions for builders of net-zero-energy homes?
is ludicrous. Typical modern electric water
heaters consume about 4,000 kilowatt-hours
per year, equivalent to the output of about
1.5 k W of PV in Sunbelt locations. It’s disappointing to see that high-performance home
ratings such as Energy Star, LEED and Build-It-Green offer only modest incentives for
SHW despite its favorable economics and
excellent durability.
However, I wish to better understand
the logic behind his statement that “if electricity is [zero-net-energy homes’] only import
— with none from natural gas, propane or
fuel oil — then these houses can truly be
worthy of the zero-net-energy label.” Personally, I agree with this statement because of
the inherent simplicity and legitimacy of a
meter that ends the year where it began.
Unfortunately, given that there are currently
at least five definitions of a ZEH, others do
not share our preference for simplicity. Much
Continued on page 68
SOLAR
TODAY
SOLARTODAY.ORG
Executive Director/Publisher: BRAD COLLINS
publisher@solartoday.org
Editor/Associate Publisher: REGINA JOHNSON
editor@solartoday.org
Manager of Online Publishing:
BROOKE SIMMONS
Managing Editor: SETH MASIA
Art Director: ALLISON GRAY
Publications Manager/Editorial Assistant:
DONA MCCLAIN
Proofreader: RICHARD HAIGHT
Editorial Intern: SARAH CURRY
Advertising Sales: MCNEILL GROUP INC.
800.394.5157, ext. 16, FAX: 215.321.9636,
mcneill-group.com
Philip Miller: pmiller@mcneill-group.com
MAGAZINE ADVISORY COUNCIL
PAUL NOTARI, CO-CHAIR
KEN SHEINKOPF, CO-CHAIR
TRAVISBRADFORD MICKSAGRILLO
ALLISONGRAY THOMASSTARRS
FRANK KREITH STEVENSTRONG
CHUCKKUTSCHER ROBERTUKEILEY
JOSEPHMCCABE JANEM. WEISSMAN
ROBERT PREUS
ASES OPERATIONS
Director of Operations:
BECKY CAMPBELL-HOWE
Director of Marketing and Communications:
NEAL LURIE
Membership Manager: CAROLYN BEACH
National Solar Tour Manager: RICHARD BURNS
Receptionist/Bookkeeper:
ELENA HOFFRICHTER
Executive Assistant: KATE HOTCHKISS
ASES BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JOHN REYNOLDS, CHAIR
MARGOT MCDONALD, CHAIR-ELECT
ANDYBLACK PAULETTEMIDDLETON
TRAVISBRADFORD NATHANMITTEN
RICHARDCAPUTO VICTOROLGYAY
ALLISONGRAY BILLPOULIN
DAVIDHILL DAVERENNÉ
JASONKEYES MARYSPRUILL
JEFFLYNG JENNIFERSZARO
GABRIELAMARTIN LORINVANT-HULL
SOLAR TODAY (ISSN: 1042-0630) is published
bimonthly by the American Solar Energy Society,
2400 Central Avenue, Suite A, Boulder, Colorado
80301-2843, 303.443.3130, FAX 303.443.3212,
ases@ases.org, ases.org. Copyright © 2008 by the
American Solar Energy Society Inc. All rights reserved.
