ML14122A020: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Page I of 2RULE Q 'ESAs of: April 24, 2014Received: April 18, 2014PUBLIC SUBMISSION M 5 Al 1: 5Status: PendingPostTracking No. ljy-8bml-cd6yComments Due: April 21, 2014,Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2010-0298 R tReceipt and Availability of Application for License RenewalComment On: NRC-2010-0298-0033License Renewal Application for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Draft Supplemental GenericEnvironmental Impact StatementDocument: NRC-2010-0298-DRAFT-0035 /7/2 1<Comment on FR Doc # 2014-05021 1 -"Submitter InformationName: Anthony SzilagyeAddress:155 MapleRossford,Email: 3000aws@gmail.comGeneral CommentAdequate alternatives do exist to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. The combination of renewable solar andwind with the decreased demand in electricity resulting from savings from energy efficiency are more thansufficient to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. A good example of what is possible can be learned fromrecent developments in wind energyIn 2012 the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released areport entitled" Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from U. S. Wind Power Projects." Thisreport says that wind technology in 2012 can produce wind at around 6 cents per KWH. The report alsodemonstrates that Ohio can produce wind at a 30-40 % capacity factor. Ohio could install 1-2 billion dollars ofwind each year for the next 20 years and we would still have wind capacity in Ohio. So, alternatives areavailable and cost effective to compete with the wasteful nuclear monstrosity known as Davis Bessie.A step in this direction occurred in March of 2014 Ohio Power Siting Board approved a 300 MW wind projectin Hardin and Logan Counties. This capacity is nearly 1/3 the capacity of Davis Bessie. The Nuclear RegulatoryConumission needs to seriously consider the evidence of the tremendous potential of both wind and solar energy.The old economic arguments against wind and solar are no longer valid given the decline in costs for both ofthese renewables.The arguments against wind and solar have relied on arguments that have been refuted repeatedly. These tiredarguments rely on disproven facts that renewables cannot provide base load power. Jacobs and Archercompleted a study in 2007 demonstrating that up to 19 interconnected wind farm sites can provide baseloadpower. On the first page of Abstract of their article they state" Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not[ttps://www.fdms.gcov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064816bcd3 9&for... 04/24/2014 Page 2 of 2used to supply baseload electric power today ( 2006). Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission gridis a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by intermittency. As morefarms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probabilitythat all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves more and moresimilarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power.... It was found thatan average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can beused as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a commonpoint and then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmissioncapacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy." There are viable alternatives tonuclear power and the old arguments concerning renewables not being able to supply baseload power are nolonger valid.Davis Bessie is not needed to produce reliable power and the license needs to be denied. The above informationapplies only to wind power but other technologies exist that do address storage problems with solar energy.When the potential of wind power is added to both solar power and energy efficiency there is no need forenergyfrom Davis Bessie.Economically investment in renewables and energy efficiency would pay big dividends. First Energy needs togive up its resistance to change and begin to implement the options that will be safer, cleaner, and better for ourfuture.https://www.fdms.g-ov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648 1 6bcd39&for... 04/24/2014}}
{{#Wiki_filter:Page I of 2RULE Q 'ESAs of: April 24, 2014Received:
April 18, 2014PUBLIC SUBMISSION M 5 Al 1: 5Status:
PendingPost Tracking No. ljy-8bml-cd6y Comments Due: April 21, 2014,Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2010-0298 R tReceipt and Availability of Application for License RenewalComment On: NRC-2010-0298-0033 License Renewal Application for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Draft Supplemental GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement Document:
NRC-2010-0298-DRAFT-0035  
/7/2 1<Comment on FR Doc # 2014-05021 1 -"Submitter Information Name: Anthony SzilagyeAddress:155 MapleRossford, Email: 3000aws@gmail.com General CommentAdequate alternatives do exist to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. The combination of renewable solar andwind with the decreased demand in electricity resulting from savings from energy efficiency are more thansufficient to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. A good example of what is possible can be learned fromrecent developments in wind energyIn 2012 the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released areport entitled" Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from U. S. Wind Power Projects."
Thisreport says that wind technology in 2012 can produce wind at around 6 cents per KWH. The report alsodemonstrates that Ohio can produce wind at a 30-40 % capacity factor. Ohio could install 1-2 billion dollars ofwind each year for the next 20 years and we would still have wind capacity in Ohio. So, alternatives areavailable and cost effective to compete with the wasteful nuclear monstrosity known as Davis Bessie.A step in this direction occurred in March of 2014 Ohio Power Siting Board approved a 300 MW wind projectin Hardin and Logan Counties.
This capacity is nearly 1/3 the capacity of Davis Bessie. The Nuclear Regulatory Conumission needs to seriously consider the evidence of the tremendous potential of both wind and solar energy.The old economic arguments against wind and solar are no longer valid given the decline in costs for both ofthese renewables.
The arguments against wind and solar have relied on arguments that have been refuted repeatedly.
These tiredarguments rely on disproven facts that renewables cannot provide base load power. Jacobs and Archercompleted a study in 2007 demonstrating that up to 19 interconnected wind farm sites can provide baseloadpower. On the first page of Abstract of their article they state" Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not[ttps://www.fdms.gcov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064816bcd3 9&for...
04/24/2014 Page 2 of 2used to supply baseload electric power today ( 2006). Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission gridis a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by intermittency.
As morefarms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves more and moresimilarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power....
It was found thatan average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can beused as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a commonpoint and then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy."
There are viable alternatives tonuclear power and the old arguments concerning renewables not being able to supply baseload power are nolonger valid.Davis Bessie is not needed to produce reliable power and the license needs to be denied. The above information applies only to wind power but other technologies exist that do address storage problems with solar energy.When the potential of wind power is added to both solar power and energy efficiency there is no need forenergy from Davis Bessie.Economically investment in renewables and energy efficiency would pay big dividends.
First Energy needs togive up its resistance to change and begin to implement the options that will be safer, cleaner, and better for ourfuture.https://www.fdms.g-ov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648 1 6bcd39&for...
04/24/2014}}

Revision as of 16:09, 1 July 2018

Comment (12) of Anthony Szilagye on License Renewal Application for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement
ML14122A020
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 04/18/2014
From: Szilagye A
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
79FR13079 00012, NRC-2010-0298
Download: ML14122A020 (2)
v • d • e


Text

Page I of 2RULE Q 'ESAs of: April 24, 2014Received:

April 18, 2014PUBLIC SUBMISSION M 5 Al 1: 5Status:

PendingPost Tracking No. ljy-8bml-cd6y Comments Due: April 21, 2014,Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2010-0298 R tReceipt and Availability of Application for License RenewalComment On: NRC-2010-0298-0033 License Renewal Application for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Draft Supplemental GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement Document:

NRC-2010-0298-DRAFT-0035

/7/2 1<Comment on FR Doc # 2014-05021 1 -"Submitter Information Name: Anthony SzilagyeAddress:155 MapleRossford, Email: 3000aws@gmail.com General CommentAdequate alternatives do exist to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. The combination of renewable solar andwind with the decreased demand in electricity resulting from savings from energy efficiency are more thansufficient to replace the capacity of Davis Bessie. A good example of what is possible can be learned fromrecent developments in wind energyIn 2012 the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released areport entitled" Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from U. S. Wind Power Projects."

Thisreport says that wind technology in 2012 can produce wind at around 6 cents per KWH. The report alsodemonstrates that Ohio can produce wind at a 30-40 % capacity factor. Ohio could install 1-2 billion dollars ofwind each year for the next 20 years and we would still have wind capacity in Ohio. So, alternatives areavailable and cost effective to compete with the wasteful nuclear monstrosity known as Davis Bessie.A step in this direction occurred in March of 2014 Ohio Power Siting Board approved a 300 MW wind projectin Hardin and Logan Counties.

This capacity is nearly 1/3 the capacity of Davis Bessie. The Nuclear Regulatory Conumission needs to seriously consider the evidence of the tremendous potential of both wind and solar energy.The old economic arguments against wind and solar are no longer valid given the decline in costs for both ofthese renewables.

The arguments against wind and solar have relied on arguments that have been refuted repeatedly.

These tiredarguments rely on disproven facts that renewables cannot provide base load power. Jacobs and Archercompleted a study in 2007 demonstrating that up to 19 interconnected wind farm sites can provide baseloadpower. On the first page of Abstract of their article they state" Because it is intermittent, though, wind is not[ttps://www.fdms.gcov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064816bcd3 9&for...

04/24/2014 Page 2 of 2used to supply baseload electric power today ( 2006). Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission gridis a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by intermittency.

As morefarms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves more and moresimilarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power....

It was found thatan average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can beused as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a commonpoint and then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy."

There are viable alternatives tonuclear power and the old arguments concerning renewables not being able to supply baseload power are nolonger valid.Davis Bessie is not needed to produce reliable power and the license needs to be denied. The above information applies only to wind power but other technologies exist that do address storage problems with solar energy.When the potential of wind power is added to both solar power and energy efficiency there is no need forenergy from Davis Bessie.Economically investment in renewables and energy efficiency would pay big dividends.

First Energy needs togive up its resistance to change and begin to implement the options that will be safer, cleaner, and better for ourfuture.https://www.fdms.g-ov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648 1 6bcd39&for...

04/24/2014

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14122A020&oldid=791392"