On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:26:49 -0400, HK wrote:

US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.


About time. The article doesn't mention that new technology greatly reduces
the amount of waste from the plants.

This is one case where the French have led the way. We've wasted too much
time not following their lead.

You've gotta admit that the Calvert plant has helped the fishing in the
area!

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:26:49 -0400, HK wrote:

US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.


About time. The article doesn't mention that new technology greatly reduces
the amount of waste from the plants.

This is one case where the French have led the way. We've wasted too much
time not following their lead.

You've gotta admit that the Calvert plant has helped the fishing in the
area!


Well, I liked it a lot better when I could tie up to the wharf and drop
baits right down there. The rips there have been less than great for me
lately.

On Oct 11, 8:46?am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:26:49 -0400, HK wrote:
US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.

About time. The article doesn't mention that new technology greatly reduces
the amount of waste from the plants.

This is one case where the French have led the way. We've wasted too much
time not following their lead.

You've gotta admit that the Calvert plant has helped the fishing in the
area!

Especially at night. Aren't the fish easier to find when they glow in
the dark? :-)

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 11, 8:46?am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:26:49 -0400, HK wrote:
US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.

About time. The article doesn't mention that new technology greatly
reduces
the amount of waste from the plants.

This is one case where the French have led the way. We've wasted too much
time not following their lead.

You've gotta admit that the Calvert plant has helped the fishing in the
area!

Especially at night. Aren't the fish easier to find when they glow in
the dark? :-)


Only disaster we had was the 3 mile island plant and that was mostly caused
by a must hire person. Equal Opportunity. They overrode the computer and
shut off the cooling water. Other problem we had, as there were only about
2 plants built from the same plans. And they built those in reverse image
of each other. All the plants in France are exactly the same. Cookie
Cutters! The bathrooms are in the same location, the doors are in the same
location, the control rooms are exactly identical. Allows anyone trained in
a plant to work in any plant, without further training. As to union being
the only competent ones. Nope. They may have better training as a
pipefitter, but not the only ones competent. My brother was a Seabee and
was one of the welders on the Nuke at the American base in the Antarctic.
Plant worked well, did not fail and was not union constructed.

"HK" wrote in message . ..
US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.

This is a renaissance that is only proposed because of massive - you
could say unprecedented - federal subsidies
Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen
"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.

We would really like to see other forms of energy investigated
Steve Warner
Maryland campaigner
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."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/7027147.stm



________________________________


The existing facility at Calvert Cliffs is very well run. I live near
it, and have no objection to proper construction and operation of some
additional reactors, especially since the jobs created will be union jobs.


I have no problem with it either. Shearon Harris was originally designed to accommodate
4 reactors. Only 1 was built. I boat on that lake quite often. As long as they hire
competent people to design, build and run the joint... more power to 'em/us.
AFAIK, The Harris plant stores its own waste and receives BIG $$ to store
other's waste as well. The only problem we are having now is an extremely
low lake level. If the lake level goes so low, the plant will have to shut down.


If your ever out on the lake, you'll probably spot the
plant patrol in the woods, ..... white suburbans, uniforms, dark shades,
rifles, and binocs.. (checking you out on the water). You kinda forget about them
after a while.


db

Yeah. Let's also not forget how union construction workers on those
early plants sabotaged critical systems during construction, requiring
multi-million dollar reworks to correct, which they pocketed with triple
overtime.
JR

HK wrote:

US eyes boom in nuclear reactors
By Laura Smith-Spark
BBC News, Washington

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.

This is a renaissance that is only proposed because of massive - you
could say unprecedented - federal subsidies
Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen
"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.

We would really like to see other forms of energy investigated
Steve Warner
Maryland campaigner
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."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/7027147.stm



________________________________


The existing facility at Calvert Cliffs is very well run. I live near
it, and have no objection to proper construction and operation of some
additional reactors, especially since the jobs created will be union jobs.

The waste fuel rod problem is easy to resolve...load the stuff up in
drone airplanes and drop it onto red states. The radiation surely will
improve the gene pool.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

JR North wrote:
Yeah. Let's also not forget how union construction workers on those
early plants sabotaged critical systems during construction, requiring
multi-million dollar reworks to correct, which they pocketed with triple
overtime.
JR



Uh-huh. Right.

On Oct 12, 6:40 am, HK wrote:
JR North wrote:
Yeah. Let's also not forget how union construction workers on those
early plants sabotaged critical systems during construction, requiring
multi-million dollar reworks to correct, which they pocketed with triple
overtime.
JR

Uh-huh. Right.

Well Harry, my friend was an engineer/inspector at two plants and that
is exactly what he said happened. Of course he was retired, with no
axe to grind not a union hack so I guess I should dismiss him and
beleive you

On Oct 12, 6:40 am, HK wrote:
JR North wrote:
Yeah. Let's also not forget how union construction workers on those
early plants sabotaged critical systems during construction, requiring
multi-million dollar reworks to correct, which they pocketed with triple
overtime.
JR

Uh-huh. Right.

You know how unions work Harry. Both me and my dad were threatened for
working to hard and staying for too much overtime. I had to fight my
way out of a freight car more than once. Say what you want Harry, one
of us here is known to be a little dishonest when it comes to subjects
like this, or boats for that matter and it's not me...