If there’s a nuclear plant involved, the environmentalists will try anything to stop it, even as “Electric usage by CPS Energy customers set a record on Wednesday as the local temperature hit a record-tying 102.”
So let’s not plan for the future; let’s scream and holler until they give up on nukes! Nukes are bad, you know — very, very bad. .
BAY CITY — The groups fighting expansion of the nuclear South Texas Project want a detailed side-by-side comparison of how much it would cost to produce the same power with renewable resources such as wind and solar.
And while we’re at it, how about we throw in Pixie Dust and Unicorn farts, too.
They think such an analysis should be complete before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers granting a license for the multibillion-dollar plan to build two more reactors outside this community. “The default position of the applicant is to go to a large, centralized generating unit and make the assumption that all others are inadequate,” said attorney Robert Eye, who is fighting the expansion.
Just for the record, counselor, by definition a “large, centralized” generation unit is going to beat the pants off an itsy-bitsy windmill any day. Just Sayin’ here . . .
Instead, Eye said, those pushing the South Texas Project should be required to look at plans such as the one presented in San Antonio last year by Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Makhijani argued that San Antonio could meet its future energy needs with a combination of renewable energy and conservation, forgoing the nuclear project.
And, again, just by definition, if ‘conservation” is in the picture, that means your alternative method cannot meet the needs by itself, doesn’t it?
But South Texas Project attorney Steven Frantz said such alternatives were looked at and found lacking because, in the case of wind, the power is intermittent. “We have shown the wind itself is not capable of producing base load power. That ends the story right there,” Frantz said. And, he said, “Conservation doesn’t produce power at all.”
In other words, they’ve already done the analyses. Surprise — we’ve got your number, buddy.
CPS Energy Vice President of Nuclear Development Robert Temple said the opponents raised a number of “interesting contentions,” but nothing he found surprising.
Eye vehemently argued that CPS Energy has failed to show it needs the power to be produced by the new reactors to serve San Antonio. He said the utility is instead looking at the project as a way to obtain an excess it could sell on the open market.
Temple disagreed. “Demand is outpacing our ability to meet the needs through conservation and renewables alone,” he said, adding that CPS views wind, solar and conservation as its future.
“This may be the last central generating station that CPS ever has to build,” Temple said.
The San Antonio Water Systerm (SAWS) could take lessons from CPS. While San Antonio remains stuck in a Stage II drought 9which will very likely upgrade to Stage III this weekend), SAWS has no plans for drilling new wells, or desalination plants, or water recovery efforts — just conservation.
Pay attention, SAWS.