Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Forward our Bright and Atomic Future!

    Linka
    Firm Applies To Expand Nuclear Plant In Maryland

    By Steven Mufson
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A01


    The first application to build a new U.S. nuclear power plant in three decades has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, bumping a proposed third unit at a Calvert County site to the front of a list of reactors being considered by the nuclear power industry.

    Constellation Energy Group of Baltimore has filed a partial application with the NRC, asking the commission to review environmental plans for a 1,600-megawatt reactor at the Calvert Cliffs site in Lusby, Md., that could cost $4 billion.

    The filing marked another small step toward a resurgence of the nuclear power industry, bolstered by generous federal tax incentives and growing concern about the greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired plants, which supply half the country's electricity. There has not been an application to build a nuclear power plant in the United States since before the partial meltdown at one of the Three Mile Island units in Pennsylvania in 1979.

    "It's partial, but it's the first application to operate and build a new reactor that the NRC has received in about 30 years," NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said yesterday.

    The existing pair of Calvert Cliffs reactors -- which went into service in 1975 and 1977 -- are the closest ones to the nation's capital, 50 miles southeast of the District.

    Companies seeking to build nuclear plants can qualify for energy production tax credits and certain loan guarantees under the 2005 Energy Policy Act only if they get the NRC to accept construction permits before the end of 2008. Burnell said the NRC expects as many as 18 other nuclear power plant applications by then, though many critics of nuclear power say high costs and continuing problems with nuclear waste disposal will likely prevent most of them from being built.

    So far, four other companies have asked for early site permits from the NRC, and two have been approved. But Constellation's environmental application -- filed July 13 and reported yesterday by Bloomberg News -- skips that step and represents a greater financial commitment. Once the NRC starts considering the application, the clock starts running on review costs, which could reach $46 million for the company, Burnell said. Constellation said application costs could eventually reach $100 million, part of which would be covered by the Energy Department to encourage development.

    Construction of the plant would not be imminent, however. Constellation is expected to file the safety part of its application, with details about the reactor's design, early next year. The NRC technical review could last 2 1/2 years, followed by another year for hearings.

    Constellation Senior Vice President George Vanderheyden said yesterday that the company had not made a final decision to go ahead with the plant. "No entity, including Constellation, has yet made a decision to build a nuclear power plant, but we're moving as aggressively as we can down the first phase, which is the licensing phase," Vanderheyden said.

    However, he said, Constellation has been positioning itself to build a new fleet of standardized nuclear power plants for which the Calvert Cliffs unit would be a model.

    "Perhaps the most significant contribution Constellation Energy can make would be to deploy the first standardized fleet of new nuclear power plants in almost three decades," Constellation chief executive Mayo A. Shattuck III said last week in an earnings release.

    Electric utilities across the country have been inching ahead with plans for new nuclear plants. Thanks to concerns about emissions of global-warming gases, opposition has been mounting against coal-fired power plants. If Congress adopts legislation that would tax or limit carbon dioxide emissions, that would put another burden on coal plants and give an additional advantage to nuclear plants, which do not emit any greenhouse gases.

    "It is another commitment by a utility to . . . nuclear in the context of constraints on fossil fuels and the increasing importance of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," said John O'Neill, a lawyer with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who represents several companies in the nuclear-power business. "They have limited options, and they're making both an economic and a national-interest judgment."

    Others disagree. "We're still in the phase where the utilities are testing the waters," said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Until we see investors put money down toward the multibillion-dollar cost of building new plants, one should remain skeptical that there's any major shift underway."

    Lyman added that the UCS opposes nuclear subsidies and maintains "that nuclear is not likely to be the lowest-cost way of mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions."

    While many energy experts have criticized the size of federal incentives for nuclear power, Vanderheyden said more loan guarantees would be needed. He said the current ceiling on guarantees would be enough to cover the cost of no more than two plants. The nuclear power industry has been lobbying Congress to sharply increase the size of the loan-guarantee program as part of this year's energy bill.

    To help deal with the financial burden of building the nuclear plants, Constellation has made an agreement with Electricite de France, which will make an initial investment of $350 million in a joint venture and invest up to $275 million later to develop nuclear plants in the United States and Canada. EDF could also acquire up to 9.9 percent of Constellation stock in the open market.

    EDF is the largest electricity producer in Europe. It has operated 58 nuclear plants for more than 20 years.
    Woo.
    Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

  • #2
    Would hate to be the guy that accepts and processes those applications ... a boring 30 years sitting around waiting for one, nothing comes, and then you retire, a week before the first one comes in
    <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
    I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting.

      Surprised it would be in Maryland of all places though.
      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

      Comment


      • #4
        Government subsidies

        Comment


        • #5
          Actually, government subsidies to technologies that need help getting off the ground (high startup cost) that benefit the nation as a whole are one of the few (only) good reasons for subsidies... certainly a far, far better use for them than corn or whatnot
          <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
          I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kuciwalker
            Government subsidies

            Paying monies to support Terrorists.
            Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by snoopy369
              Actually, government subsidies to technologies that need help getting off the ground (high startup cost) that benefit the nation as a whole are one of the few (only) good reasons for subsidies... certainly a far, far better use for them than corn or whatnot
              Nuclear power isn't some new technology that "needs help getting off the ground." If it were profitable without the hidden subsidies it would be built, if not it wouldn't.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lonestar
                Paying monies to support Terrorists.
                We get coal from the Mideast?

                Comment


                • #9
                  When there are huge special interest groups that go around and try to stop it from getting off the ground, and when it's competitors get subsidies, it is worthwhile to give it some.

                  JM
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jon Miller
                    When there are huge special interest groups that go around and try to stop it from getting off the ground, and when it's competitors get subsidies, it is worthwhile to give it some.

                    JM


                    And if you're going to subsidize something, at least do it openly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Nuclear Power plants are extremely expensive to build, and risky (one of the last ones built bankrupted an electric company for the first time since the great depression). They are ultimately profitable, generally, just not for a long time; and they are actually far better for the environment (and thus for everyone) than coal/gas plants (even ignoring debatable global warming effects).

                      Thus I think that if we're going to subsidize anything, this is something we should subsidize Especially since one of the major costs of running these things is environmental protection related, and thus a result of governmental regulation. Subsidies are equivalent in damage to regulation, and thus if we can do one we should do the other also
                      <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                      I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kuciwalker


                        We get coal from the Mideast?
                        We sure as hell get oil from the Middleeast. And Nukes provide a cleaner, more secure powersource than, say, coal.

                        Which will be thrown towards hugeass coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia named the Byrd Memorial Rendering Facility as oil prices continue to rise anyway. So coal will be going to replace oil for the more common industrial/private uses after treatment.

                        Which means nukes will have to pick up the slack. And frankly, I'd rather have a Chernobyl type power plant in my backyard(err...at least one with a containment structure) than a coal powerplant.
                        Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lonestar
                          We sure as hell get oil from the Middleeast. And Nukes provide a cleaner, more secure powersource than, say, coal.


                          We don't get much power from oil in the US.

                          Which will be thrown towards hugeass coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia named the Byrd Memorial Rendering Facility as oil prices continue to rise anyway. So coal will be going to replace oil for the more common industrial/private uses after treatment.

                          Which means nukes will have to pick up the slack.


                          We have enormous coal reserves.

                          And frankly, I'd rather have a Chernobyl type power plant in my backyard(err...at least one with a containment structure) than a coal powerplant.


                          I'd prefer whichever is cheaper.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have seen presentations that show nuclear as being cheaper, currently, on a 50 year basis.

                            And looking at China, I would not prefer whichever was cheaper.

                            JM
                            Jon Miller-
                            I AM.CANADIAN
                            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by snoopy369
                              Nuclear Power plants are extremely expensive to build, and risky (one of the last ones built bankrupted an electric company for the first time since the great depression). They are ultimately profitable, generally, just not for a long time; and they are actually far better for the environment (and thus for everyone) than coal/gas plants (even ignoring debatable global warming effects).


                              So what if it can be profitable? Other sources can be more profitable (or, more properly, cheaper).

                              Thus I think that if we're going to subsidize anything, this is something we should subsidize


                              That doesn't actually make any sense, if you think about it.

                              Especially since one of the major costs of running these things is environmental protection related, and thus a result of governmental regulation. Subsidies are equivalent in damage to regulation, and thus if we can do one we should do the other also


                              Nor does this.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X