Posted on 10/11/2007 5:28:48 AM PDT by decimon
Almost three decades have passed since the last application was filed to build a new nuclear reactor in the US. Now, up to 30 are expected in the next three years.
As time has passed, memories have faded of the 1979 radioactive leak at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania that threw the US nuclear industry into disarray.
Meanwhile, energy security concerns and worries about climate change have reshaped the debate, and financial incentives and a new licensing process have altered the economics.
The first full application for two new reactors, in southern Texas, was submitted at the end of September.
Another four are due by the end of the year and a dozen in 2008, many in south-eastern states, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said.
The earliest could be in operation by 2015.
A range of factors is fuelling the renewed enthusiasm:
* The introduction of a new fast-track combined construction and operation permit, making new reactors easier and cheaper to build * A tax credit, introduced in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the first 6,000 megawatts generated by nuclear plants * Risk insurance adding up to $2bn for the first six plants to be built, protecting companies against the cost of delays in construction * Multi-billion-dollar loan guarantees * A likelihood that the cost of emitting CO2 will rise as the battle against climate change intensifies
But the impending flood of applications is fuelling a new row over whether nuclear power represents a bold step to address 21st Century needs or a mistaken return to flawed 20th Century technology.
'Reliable source'
Supporters say new reactors are the only way to meet a projected 40% increase in US electricity demand by 2030 - a result of the country's growing population.
"Our country needs the electricity and it needs clean sources of electricity that are reliable - and that's exactly what nuclear energy is," says Steve Kerekes, spokesman for industry group the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
Thanks to improvements in efficiency, 104 reactors across 31 states already produce 20% of the nation's total electricity supply, he points out.
The NEI also argues that nuclear power is cleaner than gas and coal-fired plants and says studies show that over a nuclear plant's life-cycle - including construction and the mining of uranium ore - its greenhouse gas emissions are comparable to those of wind and hydro power.
"We wouldn't pretend for a second that we should be 100% of our energy supply going forward - but there is a role for us to play in a diversified energy supply that includes renewables, coal and nuclear," says Mr Kerekes.
'Massive subsidies'
However, others dispute this.
"It is absolutely not a clean energy source," says Tyson Slocum, director of energy policy for public interest group Public Citizen.
"Does it produce less greenhouse gas emissions than coal or gas? Yes.
"But it produces waste potentially more problematic not only from the mining aspect but from the high-level radioactive waste that a commercial nuclear reactor is going to produce."
Mr Slocum says the industry's apparent renaissance is due very largely to "massive - you could say unprecedented - federal subsidies".
"If you had a programme like this for wind and solar, wind and solar would be the biggest energy sources in the next 20 years," he said.
Security risk?
The question of how nuclear waste is stored is already a controversial issue in the US.
A planned national repository for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has run into sustained opposition from some local lawmakers, including Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The government is due to submit an application to the NRC to start construction at the site by 30 June next year. But while it is scheduled to open before 2020, it could still be delayed or blocked altogether.
In the meantime, nuclear waste will continue to be stored on site at power plants.
Critics argue that this inevitably increases the risk that plants will become a terror target, despite steps to give nuclear facilities extra protection after 9/11.
Local fight
Public reaction to the planned expansion in reactors has so far been fairly muted.
Opponents say that is because the nuclear lobby has exploited concerns over climate change.
But the NEI points to evidence that people living near existing plants are more strongly in favour of nuclear power than the general public.
At least one proposal has sparked local opposition, however.
This is a bid by US energy firm Constellation, in partnership with France's EDF, to build a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland - the companies filed a partial application in July and are due to file the rest of the paperwork early next year.
In June, Green Party activist Steve Warner founded the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition to fight the plan, bringing together local people, environmental and public interest groups.
He argues the addition of a new reactor, generating as much power as the two already at Calvert Cliffs, will push combined radioactive emissions above safe levels.
Of particular concern to the campaigners is whether the reactor could have an impact on the marine wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay, known for its blue crabs.
The project has been backed by the Calvert County authorities because it promises to create 700 jobs, but the coalition hopes to persuade the state legislature to oppose it.
"The main focus is to not build any more reactors until we resolve the waste issues and get some reasonable assurance of how they monitor the emissions," Mr Warner said.
"We would really like to see other forms of energy investigated."
We would only get “free” energy the same way Hillary Clinton would bring us “free” health care.
With the RATS taking over I doubt that more nuclear reactors will ever become a reality with them in control.We must remember the RATS don’t want anything that’s good for the country.
The Tennessee Valley Authority recently voted to resume work on Watts Bar Unit 2.
In another life in the 70’s I did a lot of work on both units 1 and 2. The work is now coming to final fruition. All the thousand little cuts that bled the program to death have apparently healed.
“A little Nookie never hurt any one.”
The graph is a link to the source, click it for what information is available.
The second link is better descriptive and has more information. It compares a few options for new construction and operation of coal plants: Scrubbed Coal, Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), IGCC with Carbon Sequestration.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yucca Mountain are fully funded by utilities?
I like the concept of using preapproved sites for planning new units. With relatively little effort to updated the site descriptions, a PSAR can be generated fairly quickly. A new system like an ABWR on a pre-approved site would be a very sweet way to go.
The rumor on the street is Hartsville will be brought forward too.
Yucca Mountain has been an ongoing item in the federal budget for the department of energy.
$494.5 million in the 2008 budget plan
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/energy.pdf
Jimmy Carter must be rolling over in his grave. Wait! He’s not dead yet. He was killing off the nuclear industry when I worked for Babcock & Wilcox NPGD.
...the Nuclear Waste Fund was created and is funded by a 1 mil per kilowatt-hour fee on all nuclear generation in this country.
...the Department cannot receive appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund equal to its annual receipts, interest, or corpus for their intended purpose without a significant recorded negative impact on the Federal budget deficit.
...and the current funding levels are insufficient to build the repository and the transportation system. If the Program is funded at its current levels without fixing the current funding mechanism, the shortfall in the funding needed would be between $1.0 billion and $1.5 billion per year.
...
Based on our recently completed Program schedule and cost estimate, annual funding will be needed at levels 2 to 3 times the current appropriations starting in FY 2009. If the requested fixes to the funding process are not put into place, DOE will not be able to set a credible opening date for the repository and Government liability will continue to grow.
Therefore, I respectfully urge the Congress to consider that it is in the taxpayers’ best interest to provide funding reform to expedite the procurement activities, engineering and construction of the repository and the associated transportation systems.
from:
Statement of Edward F. Sproat III
Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
U.S. Department of Energy
Before the Committee on the Budget
U.S. House of Representatives
October 4, 2007
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/testimonies/Oct_4_Final_RW-1Testimony.pdf
DOE administers the development project. The funding comes from the levy on nuclear-generated electricity. Just like with NRC funding, the government collects the money, and distributes it to the departments for expenditure. It does not come from general revenue.
Costs for Yucca Mountain are being driven up by delays from intervenors and Nevada politicians. IMO they should pay for the overruns.
I was just thinking to myself, “self...that is very poorly written title. Who would put “boom” and “nuclear reactors” in the same sentence?”
Can you tell that a degree is journalism was probably some slub’s second or third choice after “Marketing” and “Liberal Arts”?
It has been idadequate for many years.
I don't think that will make the energy source non-competitive
I agree. Nuclear is not cheap, but it is an important energy source for the US. It would be even better if more of our uranium resources could be produced.
Concurrent with that we should enact laws to make the development and licensing process for the repository more efficient. Nevada politicians have gamed the system to create artificial roadblocks to progress, such as holding up water permits and land use for the transport system beyond the confines of the NTS, which is federally controlled land. Those kinds of things should be eliminated.
Likewise, rescind the EO on prohibition of "spent" fuel reprocessing, so licensees will have an option other than dumping spent fuel. Allow private industry to develop reprocessing facilities by making the licensing process for these plants more efficient, and reducing the barriers to entry into the business by having reasonable limits on intervention.
Just some real-life, practical, constructive suggestions to go along with the complaining and lamenting.
Best suggestion of all.
suggestions to go along with the complaining
Not complaining, just correcting some statements.
There is a lot of opposition to a proposed coal-fired power plant in our area. Certainly nuclear would cause these same opponents to go into a fervor. What they don’t understand is that power generation has to come from somewhere, from some thing. When pressed, they mumble stuff about “alternative” sources like solar or windpower, energy sources that have merit but in no manner come even close to providing current requirements for a modern society.
Currently electric rates are fixed but due to reset soon - but if other areas of the country are any guide the rates are set to go up. And up.
These same folks are gonna go ballistic when they get a $400 monthly electric bill. Then what? God help us from idiots.
I meant more that I was doing the complaining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.