|
More Nukes on the Bay?
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. |
More Nukes on the Bay?
Great post, and definitely related to this NG. It is nice to see you make a constructive post without trolling for a political flamefest. |
More Nukes on the Bay?
On Oct 11, 10:26 am, HK wrote:
especially since the jobs created will be union jobs. Yeah, we need unions to do to the nuke industry what they have done to the Grocery, Airline, Auto, Manufacturing, and so many other industries who have been driven over the borders, and into bankruptcy... |
More Nukes on the Bay?
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. |
More Nukes on the Bay?
|
More Nukes on the Bay?
On Oct 11, 10:58 am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Oct 11, 10:26 am, HK wrote: especially since the jobs created will be union jobs. Yeah, we need unions to do to the nuke industry what they have done to the Grocery, Airline, Auto, Manufacturing, and so many other industries who have been driven over the borders, and into bankruptcy... Please. The skills required by the steamfitters who build nuke plants are not easily found among the non-unionized workforce. You need years of specialized training for that kind of work. Just because you don't have the skills necessary for high-end work doesn't mean you have to take potshots at those who do. My friend was an inspector/engineer at Haddam Neck... I know a lot more than you would think. I am not sure I want an organizaton that serves to protect the lowest common denominator from getting fired for not doing their job, building a nuke plant. |
More Nukes on the Bay?
On Oct 11, 10:58 am, HK wrote:
The skills required by the steamfitters who build nuke plants are not easily found among the non-unionized workforce. And this is just bull****. More than likely, just the opposite. Unions protect those who could not compete in a free market society. Please Harry, show me some statistics or research that backs up this statement. Or, just put me in the bozo bin again;) |
More Nukes on the Bay?
|
More Nukes on the Bay?
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com