Nuclear energy most efficient
January 14th, 2009 - Posted in nuclear energyHaving generated electricity as a plant operator, plant manager and vice president in three mid-sized electric power companies for a long career, I wish to express a few facts about using biomass (wood) as a fuel for large boilers (”Trees better alternative to coal” Hattiesburg American, Jan. 6).
There are several mid-sized boilers in service using biomass fuels. However, the low heat content of such fuels limit the electric output of such units. This causes the cost of such generation to go above the available cost per megawatt, thereby reducing use. The second factor is cost of processing wood into a useable fuel including the disturbing presence of a multitude of trucks on the local highways.
Lignite would be mined near the plant and moved through the processing unit into the boilers by stationary conveyers.
When will our nation wake up to the fact that the rest of the world is using a far higher percentage of nuclear generation than our government allows? We have listened to a minority who compare nuclear generation to the atomic bomb. If their claims are so true, why do we have nuclear power moving our submarine fleet and most of the surface vessels used by the U.S. Navy?
Electric power, our most highly used and economical source of energy, cannot be stored, transmitted long distances, nor obtained with required dependability through such sources as solar power, wind power nor tidal power. Our most reliable and cheapest source is hydropower, but we don’t want to dam the rivers and remove land from other uses.
Having several years dealing with lignite and low-grade western coal, I support Mississippi Power in its program to create jobs and additional power generation.
Think about it, would a highly controlled lignite mining operation be more acceptable than a large fleet of biomass trucks strewing wood chips and destroying your highways in your neighborhood?
Jim Ware
