NYT: Hopes for Nation's First New Nuclear Plant in Decades

Hopes of Building Nation's First New Nuclear Plant in Decades
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: March 31, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 30 — In an effort to revive the nuclear reactor construction industry, seven major companies plan to announce on Wednesday that they will apply for a license to build a new commercial power plant. The last time a plant was ordered but not later canceled was 1973.

The companies, including the two largest nuclear plant owners in the United States and two reactor manufacturers, have not specified what they would build or where. In fact, they have not made a committment to build at all. But they have agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars to get permission to build, and they anticipate tens of millions from the federal government, which requested such proposals in November. The money would go to finish design work useful for a new generation of reactors and to develop a firm estimate of what such plants would cost....

***

Industry executives say the prospects for new reactor construction are encouraging because of problems facing competing fuels: natural gas prices are persistently high and coal power stations face stiff environmental requirements. Some executives said they hoped their companies would be compensated for making power without emitting gases that contribute to global warming....

***

Whether investors will take the risk depends on estimates of future fuel and electricity prices at the time of approval, participants said. They said that they hoped to submit an application in 2008, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might rule by 2010. By then, the fate of the government's plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, might also be clear. The lack of a site for waste disposal is another barrier to new reactor construction.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/politics/31NUKE.html

Not a single one was built in the US.

and now they want MORE $$$$ for a "new generation" of reactors???

Can you spell BOONDOGGLE????

Furthermore...

The Nuclear Waste Fund (which assesses a 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour charge for the the disposal of spent nuclear fuel) will not cover the cost of the Yucca Mountain program.

Taxpayers (not nukular utilities) will have to spend ~ $28 billion to pick up the costs of developing and operating Yucca Mountain.

Nukular Powr - the tax-dollar-black-hole energy option...

to dispose of "waste." Unfortunately, they do not. They simply dump it into the air and the water and no one raises an eyebrow. As we showed in the now quiescent thread called "EU study of the costs of External Energy: What you pay with your flesh," nuclear power has the second lowest environmental cost of all forms of power production excepting wind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=5609&mesg_id=5609

Maybe you would like to tell me of an energy industry for which it is even remotely technologically feasible to contain its waste. Maybe you would like to tell me of another industry where 97% of so called "waste" can be recycled to give more energy? (Yucca mountain should NEVER open in my opinion, since it is stupid to throw precious resources away. Ask the French. Ask the Japanese.)

AP600 reactors were not built because people are completely ignorant, don't think, and don't understand the most remote thing about risk analysis. Until people stop dying from air pollution, until the risks of global warming has past, the use of nuclear power saves lives. It has the potential, in fact, to save life on earth. In any case, are you claiming that a 200 million dollar investment, which, if the author of this thread is correct, will now be available, is preferable to a 200 billion dollar boondangle leading to the death of tens of thousands of people? (Yeah, the war in Iraq, you know the oil war.)

Whether you like it or not, Generation IV nuclear reactors will be developed. It is not a question of if, but a question of where and by whom. (They will start coming on line in 2025.) The European Union, Russia, South Africa, Canada, India, and Japan are all participants in the Gen IV development process. Why? Because they understand the future. If the United States is too wrapped up in irrational fears because of the scientific illiteracy of its citizens, what is coming to it is surely deserved.

They can build and operate their own enrichment facilities (the taxpayers do that now).

They can pay for the FULL cost of spent fuel disposal (taxpayers will pick up most of the tab for that).

They should accept FULL responsibility for accident liability (the Price Anderson Act limits that now).

They can pay for conversion of uranium-fuel reactors to MOX reactors (taxpayers do that now).

They can pay the FULL cost of producing MOX fuel (taxpayers entirely subsidize that).

and on an on...

Furthermore...

Less than 2.5% of the petroleum consumed by the US is used to generate electricity. Nukular pwer cannot decrease our dependence of "furrin" oil.

Operators of fossil fuel-fired power plants pay Big Bux for pollution abatement - just ask them. They whine about it all the time.

Finally - PV arrays and wind turbines produce no "waste" - the manufacture of these devices produces less "waste" than say cement and steel manufacture for nuclear power plants - and their components can be safely recycled. Hot reactor components cannot be recycled.

flame on

On edit: forgot to mention that the AP600 reactors lack massive containment structures like the present generation of reactors - they would be sitting ducks for Al Qaeda suicide aircraft attacks.

now if we could only get the hydrocarbon folks to pay their own way, too!

Perhaps we could start with you. B-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html

:nuke:

(although i'm just a tad troubled by the implication that money donated to du goes to subsidize the damage done by thy hydrocarbon combusters).

Wind turbines are very clean, but they require the input of energy. It is true though that wind is superior to nuclear power in every way except reliability or availability.

The notion that PV produce no waste shows a very poor understanding of PV technology, especially if one requires that PV produced energy be stored for use at night. Why don't you tell me (I do so love this one) that solar energy is "free" next? This crap is so absurd, I think I'll skip the topic until you learn how to spell "foreigner." If you think, for instance that any form of energy, solar or otherwise, is independent of the need for concrete and steel, you're very, very uneducated indeed.

The fact that fossil fuel powered plants pay for pollution abatement is irrelevant. Many fossil fuel plants are grandfathered and put out metric tons of heavy metals every year. There is one important waste product that people with a very low understanding of energy always overlook in any case: It's a gas. It's called carbon dioxide. You are assuming of course, that spending money always gives results. It does not.

I am well acquainted with the distribution of energy output in the United States. The largest single fuel used in the US for power production is coal. If you go beyond abysmally simplistic avoidance of this reality, you will understand that every nuclear power plant built saves lives.

PV and wind have a higher energy profit ratios than nukular pwer.

Nukular pwer releases more greenhouse gases per kilowatt hour generated than either PV or wind.

this is the future...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

If nuclear energy can't pay its own way, then I think that throws its efficiency into question.

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for something that may just amount to a pet technology?

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790

The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel. But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.

nuclear energy was that the energy would be "too cheap to meter"? :crazy:

Coal is the worst and dirtiest source of electricity. Let's focus on fighting against coal and oil. We should not be totally against nuclear, because it does not cause global warming and pollute the air. But I agree, we should not have to subsidize nuclear power, and the government should regulate it very tightly for safety.

In many states you have the option to purchase renewable energy from windmills/solar/geothermal sources. I am glad to pay a few extra bucks every month for clean energy.

chrissake, how are they going to protect a nuclear reactor? You can drive a car right up to the reactor at the Oyster Creek plant. The local news did it-TWICE. Once before they let the plant know they were going to try it. And again, after they showed the plant the tape of the news crew's approach and the ease of it. They assured the news crew that they were in the process of beefing up security, but when they went back three months later, nothing had been done. That was the winter of 2001-2002.
They still have not done anything. This is the longest-running commercial reactor in the country, very dirty. Lots of people live, work and drive very close to this reactor. They have virtually no evacuation plan. (There was a forest fire along the parkway-which would be the main evacuation route-last summer. Traffic on the GSP is a nightmare in the summer, if you've ever been on it, you know what I mean. The traffic was at a standstill for approximately three hours. This was mostly normal shore traffic, not hundreds of panicky people fleeing for their lives, as they would be, in the case of a nuclear emergency.)
I live approximately 20 miles away from this plant, not too far from an accident, depending on which way the wind blows. If they want more plants, they should make them safe, protect them and come up with a viable plan to deal with the waste.

A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: April 1, 2004


"WASHINGTON, March 31 — A second consortium of companies has made public its own plan to win permission to build what would be the nation's first new nuclear power reactor in decades, executives of one of the companies said Wednesday.

The consortium consists of Dominion Resources Inc., Hitachi America, Bechtel and an American subsidiary of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It applied to the Energy Department on March 17 for financial help with work needed to win that permission, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission..."

"...Atomic Energy of Canada has submitted to the commission a preliminary application for review of a design for the new reactor, which would use natural uranium and heavy water..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/politics/01NUKE.html

This reactor will have the capability of burning so called "nuclear waste," i.e. it will be capable of burning recycled Uranium.

People who actually understand energy and the environment, and risk, some of the present company obviously excepted, can be thrilled with this news. Billions of tons of greenhouse gases will now be prevented from escaping from the atmosphere, millions of heavy metal laden coal ash will not be dumped our surface land.

Moreover, the reactor will be built using Canadian CANDU technology which I described in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x5627

I had long despaired that ignorance would prevail here and that we would dreamily whine our way through a fantastic dreamworld into third world status poisoned with coal ash and coal pits.

We will not of course measure the lives that will be saved if these reactors are built; and the usual religious objections will be raised, but the fact is, that by the time these reactors are underway, the shit will surely be hitting the fan.

This is great news for the American future!

Three Mile Island did a lot to spook the American public regarding nuclear power, leading us to build even more coal plants which further gunk up the places people live. It's good to see somebody making a move to bring fission power back to life.

Actually, I live not too far from a nuke plant. We often have the emergency broadcast system interruptions (you know, the blue screen and screechy beeps) that have to do with the plant. It's accompanied by a massive air-raid style horn which can be heard for many miles around the plant. It's in place in case the plant craps itself and starts spewing radioactive coolant. =D

At any rate, while more fission is a good step forward, I'd like to see increased funding for fusion research. With Tokamaks, Lawrence Livermore's laser fusion reactor, and the recent reemergence of bubble fusion research, we ought to be able to get a deuterium-tritium reactor going within the next few decades that actually produces power. That should pave the way for deuterium-deuterium systems and endless power from seawater. Of course, my principle reason for wanting increased funding is so I can see my power bill drop in my lifetime... =)

~AbM

That may have been the best laugh I've had all day. If it's cheap, than you can bet that they won't make money on it. (The power companies, I mean.) And if they can't make money on it, you can bet your life that they won't put it on the market.

Photovoltaics and other programs also need support. I think we're a long way from reaching the maximum potential for photovoltaics (an ideal peak load system).

Still, nuclear power is here and now. It is unbelievably inexpensive in overall cost (environmental + economic) when compared with its alternatives and proven with over fifty years of experience.

I believe that future forms of energy will have to meet or beat nuclear power to be viable. It's a tough challenge for other forms of energy to meet, but I think for the most part, such an investment in the challenge of matching or exceeding the success of nuclear power is one well worth making. Investments like these have a high probability of enormous payback in the future. Finally it is worth noting that fission resources are NOT infinite. While they might bridge us thousands of years into the future, they, like oil, will eventually run out. We have as much responsibility to generations thousands of years off as we do to those just a few decades off. The development of sustainable alternatives like solar, fusion, and other technologies is an important resource for the extension of our fission resources.

I very much doubt that the D + D fusion reaction will be available to humanity for commercial purposes for a very long time, possibly centuries, but it is a goal worth exploring. The D + T reaction however, might well be commercialized in the lifetimes of many now living. One hopes that it will.

and it's free...

in the usa alone sunlight causes ~100,000 new cases of cancer and 5-7,000 deaths each year.

that's due to radiation being uncontrollably released into the environment, i believe.

sunlight should be banned, imo.

...I'm sure you can get some people here to sign up for the cause. "Put out the sun!"

It's great for getting sun tans, staying warm in late Spring and Summer, and growing plants.

In the case you wish to use it for something like running a computer, staying warm at night or in winter, it ranks as very high cost energy, so more expensive than most other forms of energy that only comparitively wealthy people can afford it.

Because they are too expensive to build and operate.

Try heating a typical New England home with electricity - you will be in the poor house before the snow melts.

Now try heating he same home with "cheap" nucular electricity - you will be in the poor house before Groundhog's Day.

"only comparitively (sic) wealthy people can afford" solar energy????

The median price of a single family US home US is $150K (and a LOT higher in many markets)...

...and the po' people can afford them.

The internet retail price of a top-of-the-line stand-alone deluxe home PV package ranges from $22-29K

The internet retail price of a 400W wind turbine with a 25 foot tower ranges from $500-700.

The internet retail price of the top-'o-the line big family solar hot water heater is $3500.

What is the retail price of an SUV or a monster truck ???? $30K??? (I don't really know). I can guarantee that ownership of these vehicles is not limited to the "idle rich".

For the price of an SUV, a homeowner can install the most gold-plated solar energy system on the market today.

Over the last 25 years tens of thousands of US families have built off-grid solar homes - and by-and-large these people are not "rich".

"only comparitively (sic) wealthy people can afford" solar energy????

LOL!

I'm very glad that you have $20,000 or $30,000 to install a PV system to replace your SUV. This may come as a surprise for you, but many people do not have SUV's. Many people are just squeaking by. Now rich college freshmen with still poor educations may be unaware this, but adults have a very different perspective. However in a universe of laughing elitists who believe that the choice the average Joe faces is between a new SUV and a solar system, I guess your view would have some appeal.

Of course, if you know how to think, rather than come up with silly anachronistic slogans, if for instance you know that nuclear power plants were expensive once upon a time when their capacity figures were 60%, but now that they run at 90%+ capacity their actually among the cheapest power sources in the world, then you might recognize that the people building these two plants are putting up lots of money. They are not doing this because they want to rile up rich college students with poor educations. They are doing this is because they recognize a good investment as compared with a pleasant dream.

You laugh quite a bit, so I think I'll run up the old joke:

At an international meeting Putin announces that the Russians will go to the moon. Hu, not wishing to be upstaged, announces that the Chinese will go to Mars. Bush, at a loss, announces that the United States will go to the sun. "But your astronauts will be burned up," protest the other two. "Our scientists have solved that problem," says Bush, "we're going at night."

The sophistication of some of the sloganeers we have here for some reason remind me of this joke, old and tired as it is. (The joke, like your slogans, dates from the 1970's.)

from the article...

<snip>

...they have agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars to get permission to build, and they anticipate tens of millions from the federal government...

<snip>

hang on to your wallet...