California's $1 Billion Nuclear Park

I always enjoy a good story about government waste. Like green technology, I would have to say our bloated, lobby ridden, special interest group hindered and power corrupt government is about 10% efficient. I heard a long time ago that many of California's financial problems stem from their lack of new power plants. I was not able to find the set of laws prohibiting the construction of new plants, as I imagine the laws state something about minimum requirements that are too stringent to be economical feasible. For some reason the state went ahead and chose to import most of their energy from their neighboring states in the form of hydroelectric and nuclear power. Why taint Californian soil with dirty power plants when someone else can do the dirty work, right?

Well that is where the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station comes in, just outside of Sacramento. It was built back in 1975, during my grandfather's tenure at Babcox and Wilcox, to supply the city 963 MWe. I have read about some of the controversy involving the reactor itself, so I am not going to try and refute any of the criticisms. The thing that interests me most, is that someone with the ability to balance a checkbook, was not present when they made any of the big decisions from the State and Local levels regarding the plants decommissioning.

The plant never ran to full capacity, which isn't unusual with nuclear power plants, and is still far more efficient that any other "green" power sources. Up to 1989, it cost the state $660 million to build, maintain and upgrade. That is somewhere around $47 million a year to supply power to about 400,000 people. That is like $120 a year for the electric bill, so we aren't losing ridiculous amounts of money, it is in fact profiting, something the anti-nuclear groups failed to mention in their campaign against the plant.

In 1989, they decommissioned the power plant instead of upgrading it further and getting it's full capacity, needed desperately for the city of Sacramento and San Francisco. They turned the plant into a lovely park 2 years later for a small $400 million fee. The anti-nuclear, and environmentalist groups seem to know better then common sense in California.

Rancho Seco Recreation Area - Well Worth the Capital Losses!

The $1.1 Billion non-operating nuclear power facility that now features RV parking and duck feeding. They wanted to make use of the former grounds and installed a Solar Panel array nearby for $266 million. That is 2 MWe of solar power for $266 million vs. 375 MWe for $660 million. Or you can look at it as Nuclear is $1.76 a watt while Solar is $133 a watt. So don't tell me the reason is cost, because nuclear was 76% more cost effective then solar, and it was running at almost a 3rd of it's capacity.

The other kick in the teeth for this project is the fact that Photovoltaic (Solar) panels are only about 40% efficient, and that is in direct sun on the summer solstice. Other times of the year, when the sun is lower in the sky, and other times of the day, assuming it IS sunny, they just don't reach capacity. They obviously don't operate at night, and they obviously are severely effected by clouds, inclement weather, and smog. Nuclear runs 24/7 regardless of what the weather is like.

The real losers are Californians, myself included, who are suffering through their worst budget crisis in state history. Is the $1.1 billion waste at Rancho Seco to blame? No, but it makes up a large portion of the overall debt. This is especially important because the state could have been supporting local power, instead of purchasing it at elevated rates from it's neighbors. This makes me wonder about what has kept Nuclear Commissioning companies from building in Tijuana to avoid state environmental laws. I hate to say it, but we need to look to France to model our energy policy. Buy American, support Nuclear.

share on: facebook