Posted on 10/23/2008 6:18:06 PM PDT by csvset
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding is partnering with Areva, a multinational energy company based in France, to construct a $363.4 million manufacturing facility for nuclear reactors in Newport News, Northrop Grumman Corp. announced Thursday.
Construction will begin early next year on the 300,000-square-foot plant that will eventually bring 540 engineering and production jobs to the region, including 340 initial hires when production begins in 2012, said Margaret Mitchell-Jones, a spokeswoman for Northrop Grumman.
No radioactive nuclear material will be handled, she said. Rather, the facility will produce reactor parts such as steam generators and pressurizers, most weighing more than 500 tons.
“This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia,” said Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in a statement. “We are strong supporters of the nuclear and shipbuilding industries in Virginia, and we will continue to support this facility and compete aggressively for future expansions.”
Virginia beat out several states for the project, including South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee and Indiana, according to a state news release.
This is the second major business-development announcement for Newport News this year. In May, Canon Inc. announced it would expand its operations there and add more than 1,000 new jobs.
Florence Kingston, director of development for Newport News, called the projects “a validation of Newport News as a place for advanced manufacturing and high-quality engineering and production.”
The state and local government have promised the venture, called Areva Newport News LLC, more than $23 million in incentives, including $3 million from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund, $4.5 million in performance-based funding and $1.3 million in tax credits and job training assistance, said Christie Miller, a spokeswoman with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership.
Newport News has also promised a $6.5 million energy technology infrastructure grant and a $1.2 million discount on leasing office space in the city’s Rouse Tower building, Kingston said.
That government money would be better spent on supporting other forms of energy, said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia Sierra Club, an environmental organization.
“It’s really unfortunate that the state continues to pursue these conventional energy sources when there’s a real need to make investments in efficiency first and then in renewable energy,” Besa said. “Nuclear energy is the most heavily subsidized source of energy that we have in this country. And if those same incentives were given to efficiencies and renewables, we’d be much further along in supplying clean, safe energy.”
Areva SA is the leading nuclear vendor in the United States and worldwide, employing 5,300 people domestically, including 2,000 in Lynchburg where it produces nuclear fuel rods. Its third-quarter sales rose 9 percent to 2.9 billion euros – nearly $3.8 billion – due to progress with its atomic power plant projects, the company reported Thursday.
Areva competes with such firms as GE Hitachi and Westinghouse Electric to build nuclear reactors for power companies. Interest in nuclear power in the United States waned after the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, but some utilities have proposed building new plants because of the rising costs for other fuels.
The Newport News joint venture will supply parts for seven new nuclear power plants that Areva is negotiating to build in the United States using its “evolutionary power reactor,” said Jarret Adams, a company spokesman.
“The nuclear power industry is bringing back 'made in America,’” said Tom Christopher, president and chief executive of Areva’s North American division, in a statement. “We are establishing a world-class entity that fully supports the deployment of a fleet of U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactors made in America by Americans and for Americans.”
Areva will own 67 percent of the joint venture and Northrop Grumman the rest. While Areva brings nuclear know-how, Northrop Grumman brings a trained work force, experience manufacturing heavy equipment and a prime site along the James River, offering easy transportation for heavy goods.
“This was an excellent opportunity to use the same types of skills that are employed at the shipyard,” Mitchell-Jones said. “It’s a good strategic fit with an excellent strategic partner.”
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding is the largest employer in Hampton Roads and sole builder of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the Navy. It is currently renegotiating its labor contract with United Steelworkers of America Local 8888, the union that represents about 40 percent of its 19,000 workers.
The new venture is not an effort to decrease the company’s reliance on defense contracting, Mitchell-Jones said.
“It in no way indicates any shift away from shipbuilding,” she said. “We’re very dedicated to shipbuilding.”
Kathy Adams, (757) 446-2583, kathy.adams@pilotonline.com
One can only hope. Several utilities are looking into adding nuclear generation in the next several years so this would be a great addition to our country. Of course, if Obambi gets in, all bets are off.
“That government money would be better spent on supporting other forms of energy, said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia Sierra Club, an environmental organization.
“
Too late.
Great. I wish it would have been an American company to make the partnership but....whatever it takes to get nuclear power plants moving in USA.
uh not so fast there buck o. From our own EIA
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
Solar and Wind got most of the money but produced the least amount of power by an order of magnitude or more.
I am guessing that all of these are "right to work" states!
I agree, if Obama becomes President, there will be no nuclear reactors built period.
>>>>>seven new nuclear power plants that Areva is negotiating to build in the United States using its “evolutionary power reactor,”<<<<<
I’m not an expert, but weren’t the 56 French nuke plants built entirely from a single Westinghouse (American) design?
Nothing against Northrop, but what’s their expertise in nuke plants? And why are we using a French company when the French use *American* tech for their own nukes?
Blood sucking lazy liberals.
Other than 50 years of design, manufacturing, and maintaining nuclear plants on our nation's aircraft carriers and submarines, none.
The EIA report you posted applies only to Production Tax Credits.
Federal Electricity Subsidies (in total) were addressed in this report to Congress by the GAO:
http://gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf
See the pie graph on page 4 of Appendix I. Renewables received only 2% of all government subsidies.
Coal 50%
Nuclear 19%
Nat Gas 19%
Hydroelectric 6%
Oil 3%
Other Renewables 2%
Other 1%
Read the link again.
Page 4 is not a comparison of funding dollars, it is a comparison of the energy produced by the fuels.
50% produced by coal, 2% by the other renewables.
On page 10 you find the breakdown of government dollars, a total of $11.5B. $1.4B to renewables, $3.1B for all fossil fuels.
So which is providing more power for the dollar invested?
>>>>Nothing against Northrop, but what’s their expertise in nuke plants?
>>Other than 50 years of design, manufacturing, and maintaining nuclear plants on our nation’s aircraft carriers and submarines, none.
Doh!
I guess I was thinking more along civilian lines, but I stand corrected (informed).
Thanks.
Try aircraft carriers!
Idiot.
Outanding article here about the utter impossibility of "renewables" as a copious source of reliable energy:
Excerpt: "Without lots of energy, industrialized civilization ends. Stops. The party's over. Back to the Stone Age. The horse and buggy age, at least. And it should be obvious that turning most of America into biofuel farms, or a space the size of Arizona into an Algae Fuel factory, is not a practical solution."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.506,css.print/pub_detail.asp
Fossil Fuels:
R&D $3.1 bil + Production $13.7 bil = $16.8 bil total
Nuclear:
R&D $6.2 bil + Production $0 = $6.2 bil total
Renewables:
R&D $1.4 bil + Production $2.8 bil = $4.2 bil total
Total identifiable dollars of subsidy = $27.2 bil
Fossil fuels generated 72% of the power and received 62% of the identifiable subsidy dollars.
Nuclear fuel generated 19% of the power and received 23% of the identifiable subsidy dollars.
Renewables generated 2% of the power and received 15% of the identifiable subsidy dollars.
Please note that pages 32 thru 47 of this worthless government report lists “other ways the federal government may subsidize electricity” but does not attribute dollars to them.
My point is, Thackney, our federal, state and local governments have been subsidizing electricity ever since Edison put the whale oil guys out of business. This constant singling out the subsidies for renewables is disingenuous ridicule. Let's do away with all the subsidies.
See the pie graph on page 4 of Appendix I. Renewables received only 2% of all government subsidies.
Coal 50%
Nuclear 19%
Nat Gas 19%
Hydroelectric 6%
Oil 3%
Other Renewables 2%
Other 1%
the figure i was pointing out was the subsidies per kilowatt hour produced which in the power market is all that matters how much power did you produce for how much money you were given.
solar and win were both given over $20 per kilowatt produced where nuclear only got 40 cents and produced the same kilowatt of power thats what really matters what you get and how much you give back for each unit of govt welfare.
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.