Can nuclear power save the climate? 12 July 04

... a legacy as generous as leaving the family home to the kids, with an axe-wielding psychopath tied up in the cupboard under the stairs, requiring round-the-clock guarding… oh, and with bonus psychopaths delivered annually thereafter… When we can’t guarantee political stability for a few decades for secure nuclear waste storage, it seems pointless proposing energy solutions requiring political stability for centuries – the renewables/efficiency combination offers the most viable solution for every future generation.

I go against popular conservationist option and advocate use of neclear energy. Otherwise we are never going to get emmissions down quickly enought.

It should be used for the short term until we can get other resourses (wind, wave, solar) up to scratch…it gives us breathing space (literally)

I believe Lovelock is right…..the technology of neclear has advanced sufficently to make it safer….

Its not perfect but what choice do we have!

Nuclear power has to be taken in the context of a balanced and diverse energy supply.

Nuclear power plant, due to it’s inherant thermal inertia, cannot change load rapidly. Therefore, it is used for ‘baseloading’. In other words, always producing, with other sources on the supply grid making up for the remainder of the demand: ‘load following’ and ‘peaking’.

With a supply base increasingly comprising of renewables, these are the supplies of choice to be always producing. However, unlike nuclear, their contribution fluctuates during the day. This puts a greater demand on the remainder of plants to be able to load follow.

Nuclear just isn’t what you would build to complement a supply mix with a large proportion of renewables.

Rather the alternatives are: Storage :Electricity is notoriously inconvenient to store on a large scale. Batteries are increadibly environmentally unsound. The best way to do this is through hydro-electric pumped storage, but there are very few suitable sites. Fuel cell ‘pumped storage’ such as Regenysis may then be the best alternative for storage. Storage would actually complement inclusion of Nuclear capacity in the supply mix, but at present is prohibitively expensive.

Oil and Gas : probably the best short term solution, but as North Sea supplies dwindle in the next 10 years or so, the price is likely to hike. And power plants operate for far longer than 10 years.

Coal: generally not quite as rapidly adaptive to load as oil and gas, but with the right technologies fairly large and rapid adjustments are achievable. Coal is much easier to stockpile. So disruptions to supply are easier to manage than for oil or gas. Coal fired plants can also acommodate large amounts of biomass firing (as much as would be available within a reasonable distance of the plant – bearing in mind that fossil fuels are burnt in a ‘dirty’ manner to transport the biomass to the plant.)

The carbon dioxide from coal, oil and gas fired plant can be separated before the combustion products are emitted to the atmosphere (There are many technologies available to achieve this, such as a solvent in a regenerative cycle, oxygen firing, gas transport membranes….). This carbon dioxide can then be used to pump oil and gas from depleted fields, where it will stay (like the oil and gas before it) for many thousands of years.

Additionally, technology exists for the removal of all of the major emissions which have made fossil firing unpalatable: Particulates (smoke, which is generally carcinogous) by Elecro-static Precipitation; Nitrous oxides (cause acid rain) by low NoX burners and Selective Catalytic Conversion (similar to the catalytic convertor on a car); Sulphur oxides (acid rain again) using limestone or sea water; dioxins, furans and heavy metals using activated carbon (similar to water purification jugs). In most cases, these need to be removed in carbon dioxide storage systems in any case.

So basically, the choice (in the UK anyway) is between (non renewable complementary) nuclear energy and (renewable complementary) truly clean fossil fuelled supplies to make up for the gap between demand and the supply from renewables: Gas and oil in the short to medium term; coal in the longer term.

I know which I would prefer.

Hi Martin,

I am glad you are sharing your views on Mark’s site. The engineers are always on the front line of climate change prevention in ways that minimize the effects on modern society.

Please continue to share your thoughts to increase awareness that there are no easy answers and even renewable energy has some drawbacks.

It is important also to help people understand your ideas by simplifying them as much as possible. It is important to address the dangers of nuclear power generation so people can have a more objective balanced view.

The views about nuclear energy are polarized too much and this leads to confusion and people taking sides. I disagree with taking sides and I believe you can help the process by addressing the more controversial aspects.

I feel this is needed because with all the problems associated with nuclear energy, the fact remains that no greenhouse gases are produced and I think that climate change is more detrimental than the prospect of managing nuclear wastes when we objectively look at it.

One way I explain this is that solar energy is from a nuclear source so if I am against nuclear energy then I am against solar energy. Why people oppose nuclear energy is not because of the nuclear produced electricity but because of the problems associated with poor power plant design and the transport and storage of nuclear wastes.

I think that helping people identify the real problem (something engineers naturally do); you can help people focus more clearly.

Now, the people who fear the problem of the containment of nuclear wastes can easily make their case. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have put the entire nuclear industry on the defensive. So, it is up to the nuclear industry to create confidence by better power plant designs and to show more clearly how we can contain the nuclear wastes safely.

This discussion is important because sometimes many people may not understand that we may not always have a clean way to mitigate climate change.

I will also say that many people who are against nuclear contamination accidents (by not employing the use of nuclear power plants) are the ones for climate-change prevention.

Mark is avidly against nuclear power plants and is convinced that we can avoid it by using renewable energy only.

Many proactive environmentalists who are the main supporters to prevent climate change are avidly against anything that could release radioactive contaminants into the environment.

So, if you could in effect depolarize the issue so people can see both the benefits and risks objectively then you would have done a great service.

The best approach I recommend is to fully understand the point of view of the people who avidly fear it. They have valid reasons for their views. And then address them in an objective manner.

I would love to hear what you come up with so we all can be more informed about all aspects of the pros and cons of nuclear energy to have a more balanced perspective.

The best part is that controversial topics create more passionate debate and I would love people who do not contribute enough on this site to wake up and do so.

Hopefully the discussion will not result to ridicule but in identifying important issues that must be resolved.

I am sure that no one would be for any nuclear accident. On that, we can all agree.

This effort can only help your own career as an engineer for the power industry.

Many do not realize that the creative engineers like you are the ones who will insure that electric power generation will remain a safe enterprise far into the future.

Now, if you can take this one on, then I can safely duck the issue! ;-)

Now, I do have a technical question or two which you may be able to help me with. It concerns power factor reduction.

I checked my compact fluorescent light bulb and found it had a power factor of 0.53. So, in essence, the power company is delivering 25 watts while my light bulb shows a consumption of 13 watts.

I was not aware until I measured it that fluorescent lights have an inductive load and one that is not corrected by a capacitor. It is my understanding that our residential watt meters do not measure reactive power and therefore the utility pays for wasted energy while we think we are using less energy.

Is what I just said accurate? When an inductive load is corrected, does the residential consumer benefit from reduced kilowatts or does it simply not register on the meter? Likewise, will the utility benefit if residential homes are corrected for inductance? I would love to have your feedback on this!

I live in America and I am not sure about this aspect here or if things are done much differently in Europe. But I crave the correspondence with people like you so I can increase my awareness of the difference between how power is distributed and measured between America and Europe.

I know from the per capita emission figures that you guys in Europe are doing something right and we may be able to learn from this!

I think engineers have a special role to play and I look forward to your continued involvement in sharing your thoughts on Mark’s site.

I appreciate you sharing your views from the power generation side and if you know of any energy usage habits that people can employ in their homes which would increase power plant efficiency and reduce emissions, then I would welcome your suggestions and I believe Mark and the rest of the people who visit this site would also appreciate this!

I think that posting a request for an objective debate on nuclear energy had to be done for the reasons you mentioned. This was a great call on your part! And Tony Blair was correct that this issue must be included when discussing options.

Also, all ideas need to be on the table at all times and this includes sequestering options and that Cambridge Conference on wacky schemes. In order to win, we have to span the full spectrum of human ingenuity and keep an open mind!

I just finished my dialogue with another engineer on this site who I encouraged to actively participate more since he is associated with the power industry.

As an engineer myself, I understand the upper limits of human creative effort to solve problems which can seem intractable. These upper limits are very high and we seldom recognize our own special creative gifts nature developed in us. Space exploration, cell phones, email, and the Internet are just a few examples of what many considered to be impossible and later became a reality.

My friend, we put men on the moon within the time frame of 10 years. I not only believe that we have the ability to mitigate climate change on blind faith. I know we can! All my confidence and optimism come from my understanding of the vast potential of human ingenuity. This ingenuity lies on the bedrock of understanding the basic concepts of universal physics. Our understanding of physics and chemistry are major assets.

Objectivity is critical in my perspective and taking sides on being pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear is very counterproductive. For your sake, I will focus on things that make the most sense and that help focus the debate on the side of objectivity only.

No one should be against nuclear energy if we can be completely assured of its ability to safely produce electricity and to be cost effective. Nuclear electric production produces no greenhouse gases. In fact, the current use of nuclear energy may have already bought us enough time to adequately deal with climate change

If were not for these nuclear power plants already producing electricity, then we may be facing a runaway option right now. I say this because if these plants were coal power plants instead, then the extra emissions may have already put us over the edge when we were in our infancy of understanding of climate science and when we were still developing reliable computer models. So, this fact alone should change our attitude with more respect toward the nuclear industry if that industry actually already prevented climate change to this point in time!

Now, we all should be against nuclear accidents and their prevention. One way to do this is to not use nuclear energy to begin with. However, we are already stuck with managing current nuclear power plants and the buildup of current nuclear waste material. From this perspective, we have no choice but to continue our efforts to make nuclear energy safer with existing plants and continue to improve ways to safely isolate and contain nuclear wastes already accumulated. Therefore, we still will need a responsible proactive nuclear industry for a quite a long time to come.

The first nuclear issue would be safe power plant design. One thing I can tell you about engineers. If things screw up like they did with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, then the increased awareness will generate solutions from the engineering community to prevent those problems from ever happening again.

The engineers are the ones who understand the problems. Many times it is management that does not listen. It is important to have good experienced engineers to listen to. You will always get an honest answer from them. They are trained not to make false assumptions and to find viable solutions because unlike many other professionals, they cannot hide their mistakes so they strive to be correct. These guys will always be your greatest friends!

I have read about pebble bed reactors and I was very impressed with how many problems associated with a melt down that were eliminated with this innovative design. The idea even eliminated human error (yes, I truthfully used the word eliminated). Human error caused both the Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disasters. What a deal. Imagine solving a problem of human error by taking the human out of the loop! The pebble bed approach does not require the need of a coolant to prevent a meltdown. It will never get hot enough to melt to begin with and that was the essential breakthrough as I understand it.

So, I feel much more reassured that we can improve power plant safety to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown. And with the Three Mile Island meltdown, it at least contained the radioactive substances effectively enough and this is a credit to American engineers who at least knew how to design the containment building in case of an accident.

The Russian disaster was definitely the worst case scenario and we have direct experience with what a worst case scenario is like since it happened. We have not experienced the worst case scenario with climate change but from what you said in your book, mass extinction seems like a few magnitudes higher in comparison to the problems associated with nuclear power generation.

I think that you exaggerate the nuclear dangers when comparing it as being similar to climate change. That is the main reason I think that nuclear energy and all decent ideas have to be on the table. When compared to the prospects of mass extinction, we better not be overly choosy when our options may be limited and our time frame limited as well!

Now with respect to older power plant designs still in operation: We have to watch them more carefully because some of them still have a meltdown potential. Politicians should always provide adequate funding and oversight to insure that these plants remain safe.

Now the next issue is one of how we best prevent radioactive wastes from contaminating the environment.

This issue is about containment and the good news is that nuclear power plants do not throw their toxic wastes directly up a smokestack like coal plants do. So, these wastes are already contained to begin with. Also, the quantity of waste is large enough but not as large as compared to other industrial quantities. The total volume is immensely less than the half million train car loads of coal one coal power plant consumes annually.

So, what we have are very nasty substances that we need to isolate and allow them to decay. Some decay over geological time periods but not all of them do. Some with the longest decay periods happen to be the least in quantity and occupy a very low volume of space. These thoughts do not reduce the concern as much as help us more objectively look at the problem at hand. Each radioactive substance should be looked at based on half life decay, volume, radioactivity, and how easily it can disperse into the environment.

I confess that I do not know much about the science of containment and the problems associated with minimizing this risk. I do know that gases would be the worst problem, and then radioactive liquids. This is because gases can escape into the atmosphere and liquids can invade ground water. I am less afraid of solid material because if it is secure, then it cannot do anything but simply sit where it is parked.

My question is can we chemically convert all radioactive gases and liquids to a solid form by combining them with other inert substances? If the radioactivity were an issue to the stability of these created compounds, then can the radioactivity be diluted sufficiently by increasing the volume of the inert material?

Now with respect to burying the wastes, etc: I believe there is a concern about continued monitoring so I favor access to the wastes in case there may be any concern about leakage. I believe that a backup system be used to contain the leakage and also allow the problem to be rectified. The only problems that should come up are the ones associated with unknowns of the stability of containment systems and the degradation of the materials designed to hold the radioactive substances over long periods of time.

Now, this may seem like we have to monitor some waste for millenniums. Not really. Over the course of decades and centuries for sure, we will more than likely have refined are experiences to address the containment issue better. I do not believe that it will take a millennium to do this. Within the next fifty years, who knows what we might have developed to better mitigate these problems with continued research. Problems that do not manifest themselves in fifty to a hundred years may not ever manifest themselves in a millennium! Now this is an assumption on my part but not an unreasonable one. Nuclear experts are better able to address this aspect.

With respect to managing nuclear problems: I see it this way. We can get better at it over time. If we have climate change instead, what can we do then? Climate change would only get worse and more intractable for us to deal with and would definitely last millenniums. So, the comparison between nuclear and climate change only diminishes climate change and exaggerates nuclear problems. I think that we make a grave mistake when we do not place issues within the proper context.

Now with respect to terrorism: I leave that problem to security experts. There is no greater enemy we have than the negative application of human ingenuity. Even climate change cannot compete with this one and maybe I am exaggerating here.

However, humans can create a mass extinction directly if they wanted to. I know that nuclear materials designed for weapons still poses a great threat and much more then using them for power generation. I know that all hospitals contain radioactive isotopes used for cancer treatment which could be used in a dirty bomb.

My only hope is that the good guys are smarter than the bad guys. I think we have hope here because terrorists would not exist if they were very intelligent. The best and brightest among us should be the good guys and hopefully their ingenuity will be sufficient to protect us.

The concept of climate change was first introduced widespread with the threat of a nuclear winter from the detonation of nuclear arsenals. Sometimes, it may seem unfair that those against power generation would not be even more proactive against the bombs and the industry that creates them. I am sure there is a waste problem with the bomb factories. Nuclear engineers did find a creative way to do something about warheads at least which is worth mentioning.

One of the greatest ingenious ideas ever created was the idea of paying Russia millions of dollars for the nuclear material in their missiles to be used in power plants instead. This is what happened to many Russian warheads. This was the nuclear equivalent of turning swords into plowshares. The people who developed and implemented this idea should get the Noble Peace Prize or at least be acknowledgement for an incredible win-win ingenious way to solve the problem of how to best deal with the stockpile of nuclear warheads. I am sure the Russians appreciated the revenue from this! This is an example of ingenuity at its finest!

So, what would be a prudent path to take regarding nuclear power generation?

I would be against taking the current nuclear plants off line and replacing them with coal plants for the simple reason that the coal plants produce too much carbon and create a trap for us with the increased sulfates that cool the planet. What happens when we clean up the sulfates or reduce coal consumption? Will this increase warming? Just another annoying complexity we have to deal with and a concern of mine.

What if we built a few more nuclear power plants with improved design features that eliminated the risk of meltdown? Would the extra burden of more nuclear waste make the current problem much worse than it already is? I think that this is a fair question to ask.

I think that we should develop all renewable energy sources as you believe we should. I think that economics plays a factor in all decisions. I would not loose sleep over a few extra nuclear facilities since it may not matter that much. I think that a greater emphasis on safety and research are your best points to articulate and that enough funds be allocated for a viable more responsible nuclear industry. Responsible engineers should always be included in the watchdog group to insure the prospects for an improved nuclear industry.

For me, ideas of conservation have the most immediate benefit and educating the public better is the bedrock of immediate reductions in emissions. I truly believe that if enough wasteful habits are corrected, then the greenhouse gas emissions will take a mighty and immediate plunge. Educating the public on preventative measures is more important than just understanding the science.

Next to energy conservation would be energy efficiency improvements. There is so much current technology that is not effectively being utilized. If we did a better job, then watch the inventories plummet.

Next to this would be infrastructure changes and changes that would enable people not to need unnecessary transport and changes that eliminate rush hour traffic conditions. We can do so much better than this. I mentioned in another post how people are forced to drive long distances to work because they cannot afford to live where they work and therefore increase traffic congestion. Metropolitan planers need to do a better job for all of us. More roads and wider ones are not always the answer to this. It is the placement of where we live, work, and shop.

I believe that America has the greatest problems with stupid urban planning and my bet is that the UK does a much better job. I think some countries which have many autos but less congestion and fewer traveled miles could really help the USA out. This is one idea I was talking about in other posts in how other countries could and should give the USA a helping hand.

The more we do to reduce the need for energy and the more we efficiently use it, then we eliminate the need for more power plants and may even reduce them. It is debatable but I think I would banish a coal power plant over a nuclear one until we get a handle on the overall emissions and climate situation.

And if we have no choice, research into sequestering carbon directly out of the atmosphere may be necessary. I think that my posts on methane reductions may have merit to since it is more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short run. It is even more powerful than calculated when based on a 20 year time frame. It has a greenhouse warming potential of 23 times that of carbon dioxide with the 100 year time frame. When the time frame is reduced to 20 years, then its global warming potential of methane goes to 56 times that of carbon dioxide. So if the oil and gas industry cleaned up the methane leaks, then this may give us a big short term boost and something I think Mr. Blair should encourage our Oil King (Bush) and Oil Queen (Rice) to take care of. ;-)

This then leads to a final thought since I wrote quite enough already.

It is a mistake to only focus on allocating carbon reductions planet wide. It is a good and proper concept to employ but not the only one. It would be a mistake to use this as the only focus. Methane and nitric oxide reduction can play an important role. Sequestering carbon from the atmosphere is a good one. Improving sinks. Space mirrors, and the like all should be explored no matter if we use them or not. We have to experiment and test ideas on a small scale.

We should always have available as many viable options as possible and continue to search their potential. We may have to more fully develop an idea in time to implement it if we are forced to. Constant research in climate science needs to continue and climate engineering concepts also need research and should be integrated with computer models to help identify the potential benefits and risks of all ideas that prove merit. We need to know the science better but we need to understand all preventative measures better as well because prevention should be at the heart of our entire focus.

I believe that we need to employ the full spectrum of human ingenuity in a responsible and objective manner and if we have this focus, then I see us winning and you and I will be drinking in your favorite English pub when we are old men and feeling the ecstasy of success and a toast to a job well done and exclaim what a great day it is to be alive! Your children will grow in a wonderful world and they will be proud of their father and follow in your footsteps,

I hope at least some of what I shared provided some benefits to your efforts Mark. You are a champion in my heart and an important ecologist. Engineers are not good ecologists like you are but we are good at solving problems. Just share your ecological concerns with a few good engineers. They should sincerely listen to what you have to say and will passionately strive to incorporate your concerns in any solutions they come up with.

Thanks again for asking the question to the people who share on your website. I hope all responses served your purpose. You gave us great honor by asking for our thoughts. What you did is the sign of a great leader and I am so happy we have you to help us prevent climate change!

Now if your current belief in avoiding nuclear (even after what I wrote here) is still something you believe in strongly enough and your ecological reasons mandate this, then I suggest that you enlist technical experts on the renewable side that can adequately address the problems associated with renewable energy. In order to eliminate nuclear altogether, the other alternatives have to resolve any remaining problems.

You already have a friend named Martin who works in the power industry who shared some important aspects of power generation which renewable energy may not have adequately addressed. I will say that renewable energy may have a problem in a cloudy, windless area which is far away from the tides, rivers, and hot springs. Renewable energy often depends on the correct location and climate.

I am sure there are many technical people who can share insight into how best to make renewable energy more viable and prove its feasibility in being a better alternative to nuclear. That is the case you have to make. In any event, the use of renewable energy should limit the use of nuclear power and it could at least do that.

Best Regards Always, Dan

That was a creative response but it may be helpful for others to understand more clearly your main points!

Please read the other posts and do me a favor and state your case more convincingly. I have not benefited from your view since it contains no details other than your opinion.

Simply prove your points with an analysis to back it up. Being current with the latest on safety and power plant designs and addressing problems with renewable energy would be helpful.

I ask not because I disagree with you but because I cannot claim to have the best answer.

I made some good points in my post and I challenge you to address them at the same level I shared them.

Fair enough?

I look forward to your thoughtful response! No ridicule here! I just want to know more precisely what you have to share so I can be more informed.

Sincerely, Dan

Dan,

Keep using the energy saving light bulbs, and don’t worry about the power factor.

The light bulb has a power requirement of 13 Watts.

The fact that it has a power factor so far away from 1 means that it draws maximum current at a time very different to that at which maximum voltage is applied, so a system with a higher current rating is required to supply it. This will be of no concern to yourself as a user as a light bulb is VERY comfortably within the capabilities of your home supply. (This is the difference between Watts and Volt.Amps, which have the same units, so are often confused – Take a look at the markings on your meter to check which it’s measuring – I’m pretty sure it’ll be Watts, as that is the true measure of energy consumption, as opposed to Volt.Amps, which has an ‘imaginary’ constituent)

The only adverse effect is that the higher current causes a slightly higher heating loss in your local distribution network, but this really is negligable, and may be balanced by other loads on the network.

As a domestic consumer, you should only worry about your energy consumption – let your supplier worry about the technicalities.

http://www.microconsultants.com/tips/pwrfact/pfarticl.htm

Dan,

Thanks for your support.

I would say one of the most important steps to energy efficiency is not to heat your home electrically.

In all thermal power plant (i.e. Coal, gas, biomass, nuclear), a large amount of the heat released from combustion is rejected, and generally to the sea, river, lake or atmosphere – Somewhere between 45% and 65% depending on the technology and era of the plant.

Much of this energy could have been used to heat your home, had the fuel been burned in your home instead (12% loss with a modern condensing boiler)

for more info on domestic boiler efficiency, follow the link http://www.sedbuk.com/

Better still, push for district heating Combined Heat and Power.

much of the heat rejected by a power plant cycle could be used for heating homes/factories/any other process which requires heat at relatively low temperatures (say below 300 Degrees Centigrade)rather than simply dumping it, so you would be using energy that otherwise would have gone to waste, without burning any in your own home. The emission controls on larger plant are generally stricter than they are for domestic boilers, so you’d be doing the environment a double favour.

For more exergy related tips, follow the link http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/exergy/#2

Best Regards Martin

You are correct. The waste heat from our university power plant where I attended college was used to run an absorption air conditioning system which cooled a few high rise buildings from the energy of the power plant’s waste heat.

I took a year of thermodynamics and a course on power plant theory and design. I am familiar with cogeneration. I am aware of power plant efficiency, and the conversion of electricity back to heat is not as efficient as using a fuel source instead to generate heat at the user end. You are correct on all these matters.

Most people heat their homes and water with natural gas here in the States. No one uses electricity unless it is a heat pump system which helps bring the efficiency back up quite a bit. However, natural gas usually produces fewer emissions no matter how efficient the heat pump is simply because it delivers less CO2 per Btu of fuel burned when compared to coal produced electricity.

So, the power factor may be balanced elsewhere. Interesting! My concern was that as more residential consumers use fluorescent bulbs, the utilities would be providing more power for inductive loads and that this extra electric load would not be compensated for by the consumer.

It seems that the efficiency of these bulbs can be improved further with a capacitor circuit to correct the power factor. Maybe insignificant but there is no incentive for improving efficiency by the manufacturers of these bulbs if the extra electricity provided by the utility is not charged to the residential customer.

My point is not from the consumer point of view but from the global perspective on greenhouse emissions.

Since the extra power generated from uncorrected power factor can generate more emissions, then it seems prudent not only to encourage more use of fluorescent lighting but to further improve the actual efficiency of the bulbs.

The idea is to make the bulb use 13 watts at the power plant and not 25 watts. Assuming 10 million residential customers using 4 bulbs at a time, that amounts to a savings of (25-13) X 4 X 10 million or 480 megawatts of power.

Now, I am assuming that CPF bulbs will become a standard bulb for homeowners to use. How much would 480 megawatts make from the utility perspective? This is power not billed to the consumer. Would the utility raise the rates or would another power plant have to be built?

Of course, I already know the partial answer. If we went form 60 watts to 25 watts then we would save 1400 megawatts (1.4 billion watts) based on the previous example by just using the current CFBs at 25 watts replacing the incandescent bulbs at 60 watts.

Nevertheless, how much power is 1400 megawatts or even 480 megawatts in terms of a percentage of power plant capacity? You would know that answer.

Thanks for your input. Please keep posting on Mark’s site when you find time.

Best, Dan