No comment necessary.
Posted on 05/12/2008 5:20:46 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
With eight power plants on the drawing board, Texas could lead the way in an American renaissance of nuclear power, according to industry leaders and some policymakers.
Four power companies -- New Jersey-based NRG Energy, Amarillo Power, Dallas-based Luminant and Chicago-based Exelon -- have proposed building nuclear plants in Texas. That would increase the reactors in the state from four to 12, and more than triple its nuclear output.
It's likely that some of the plants will never get built, and the permit process and construction would take about a decade.
But whether Texas ends up with two more reactors or eight, it is clear that a nuclear awakening is under way. Largely spurred by new loan guarantees and other federal incentives, plus a new regulatory scheme in Washington, companies are floating plans and partnering with overseas firms on construction and design.
First since 1979
This reawakening is also evidenced by a spate of licensing and operating applications at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a development all the more startling given that these applications are the first since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
"Nobody has built a plant in 28 years, and all the manufacturing capacity is in France and Japan," said Steve Winn, chief executive officer for nuclear development at NRG. "So rebuilding the U.S. labor force is going to be a challenge and we're working with the state and federal government to work with a plan for labor training. ... But the financial community and the general population are more open to nuclear power now than they have been in a long time."
Serious questions remain. For instance, no solution has been found for the radioactive byproducts of nuclear energy, which can remain hazardous not for just hundreds of years, but for thousands or even tens of thousands.
The construction costs can also be daunting. Already, detractors are warning that the new plants would be much more expensive than advertised.
While utilities reportedly have priced the cost of a kilowatt of nuclear power at $3,000 to $4,000, Moody's Investors Services said in October that a more realistic price would be $5,000 to $6,000. That puts the cost of a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant at about $9 billion, according to reports.
And another renaissance might be in the offing -- that of the anti-nuclear movement.
"We think that nuclear power is the wrong way to go and we're certainly going to be opposing these new nuclear power reactors," said Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club.
The plants
Texas is home to four nuclear reactors at two sites -- two at Luminant's Comanche Peak site at Glen Rose, and two at NRG's South Texas Project, in Matagorda County. The Comanche Peak reactors came on line in 1990 and 1993; the South Texas reactors came on line in 1988 and 1999.
Collectively, the NRG and Luminant plants produce about 13.4 percent of the annual output on the Texas power grid and have a combined generating capacity of 5,000 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 3.5 million homes.
Under current plans, Luminant and NRG would more than double their nuclear output by building two more reactors apiece adjacent to their current facilities.
NRG submitted its federal application in September 2007 for what the company says will be an $8 billion project.
The NRG application, which is being delayed by regulatory questions, is the only one for a Texas plant pending at the commission.
A Luminant spokesman says it plans to submit its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in September 2008. The company has not said how much the project would cost, although it's likely to have a price tag similar to that of the proposed NRG plants.
Two more companies could also become nuclear players: Amarillo Power, a company formed by developer George Chapman; and Exelon, which has floated proposals to build units in Matagorda or Victoria counties.
The Amarillo reactors would generate about 1,600 megawatts apiece and Exelon's plants would put out about 1,500 megawatts, according to the NRC.
All told, the NRC says it expects as many as 30 permit applications for reactors across the country. The agency has already received 14 applications, the first since 1979.
Under the new regulatory process, companies can apply for an operating license using plant designs preapproved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In theory, this will cut the time required to obtain the necessary permits.
"The catalyst has been the [federal] Energy Policy Act, which provided loan guarantees and production tax credits," said Dave Knox, a spokesman for NRG. "It was needed to kick-start the nuclear industry. After we stopped building nuclear, most of the infrastructure had gone overseas to France and Japan. ... The loan guarantees were needed to rebuild the industry."
He said anxiety over global warming and the country's growing dependence on fossil fuels helped spur the 2005 legislation.
Why nuclear power?
Operators of the Texas power grid predict that Texas' population will grow by 6 million by 2016 and that the state's energy needs will grow accordingly. Moreover, several older power generation plants are expected to shut down in coming years.
A megawatt is enough power for 500 to 700 homes under normal conditions. Currently, the power plants on the grid can generate about 73,500 megawatts, and grid operators say that Texans will need an additional 70,000 megawatts by 2028.
That means the state must look to nuclear power for at least part of its long-term power needs, says Barry Smitherman, chairman of the state Public Utility Commission.
"Our state is currently home to four nuclear generation facilities, but more are needed to help satisfy our growing energy needs," he said in a recent presentation to lawmakers.
Environmentalists say the state can align supply and demand through conservation, energy efficiency and more aggressive use of alternative power sources, such as wind and solar. Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, warns of more cost overruns with nuclear power, and of unacceptable pollution with coal.
Critics note that the Comanche Peak plant, the last nuclear facility built in the United States, took two decades to construct and cost about $11 billion, 12 times more than anticipated.
"More efficient lighting, more efficient air conditioning, smarter electronic controls and more efficient building codes," Smith said, enumerating a few conservation efforts the state could pursue to avoid building more nuclear and coal-fired plants. He cited research from an environmental group that indicates that those steps, along with more aggressive use of renewable energy, would provide Texas with enough power through 2030.
Regulatory attorney Jim Boyle questions whether conservation efforts and new renewable energy, by themselves, would be enough to meet the state's future needs. But he said that leaves only three other options -- more nuclear power, more coal-fired plants, or more gas-fired plants -- and each comes with its own unique set of problems.
"With nukes, the big problem is nuclear waste," said Boyle, a former director of a consumer watchdog agency. "It was also tremendously expensive in the 1980s and they had a lot of mistakes being made with contracting and design flaws."
He said the problem with gas-fired plants is the expense and volatility of the fuel.
"And I don't think you'll see a lot of movement toward coal unless they can make it cleaner than it is today," he said.
NUCLEAR PLAYERS IN TEXAS
Amarillo Power, in partnership with Maryland-based UniStar Nuclear Energy, proposes building two so-called evolutionary power reactors, which can produce 1,600 megawatts of power. According to information from the NRC, the reactors include a double-walled containment area and a "core catcher" that contains and cools core materials in the event of a severe accident relating to a reactor vessel failure. The first EPR unit is under construction in Finland, and another is planned in France.
NRG Energy, the state's second-largest energy provider after Luminant, has submitted an application to build two units at the current site of the South Texas Project, in Matagorda County. They are of the advanced boiling water reactor style, built by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. They would be 1,350 megawatts apiece. This project is the farthest along, with NRG being the only Texas company to have submitted its application to the NRC. Cost: $8 billion for both units, according to the company.
Luminant, the company formerly known as TXU, has signaled its intention to build two more plants at its current Comanche Peak site, near Glen Rose. The new reactors would be of the U.S. advanced pressure water reactor design, which would provide 1,700 megawatts apiece. The reactor is designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, a sister company of the automaker. Luminant says it plans to submit an application to the NRC in September.
Exelon, a Chicago-based company, has said it might build two units -- possibly in Matagorda or Victoria county. The units would be economic and simplified boiling water reactors from GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, according to the company. Exelon says it will file its application in September, although it has not decided whether to proceed with construction.
Pros
Unlike coal and gas-fired plants, nuclear plants create no harmful greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
Nuclear power plants provide so-called baseload generation -- that is, nuclear plants can continue running around the clock and provide a stable source of power.
Nuclear fuel is relatively cheap.
Cons
Highly radioactive byproducts from nuclear reactors can remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years. There is a move afoot to create a nuclear waste dump in the Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, although that project remains stymied in Congress. Critics warn of a great potential risk when transporting dangerous radioactive waste to the site.
Nuclear construction is expensive and, critics say, so far impractical without taxpayer help.
Uranium mining can harm the environment and poses a potential public health risk.
BY THE NUMBERS
20 percent: The percentage of the country's electricity that comes from nuclear power plants.
13.4 percent: The proportion of electricity generated within the Texas power grid that comes from nuclear reactors.
3.5 million: The number of homes that can be powered by the state's four existing nuclear reactors.
500: The number of people employed by a single reactor: 350 technicians for operations and maintenance, 110 chemical, mechanical and civil engineers and 40 nuclear engineers. R.A. DYER REPORTS FROM THE STAR-TELEGRAM'S AUSTIN BUREAU. 512-476-4294 rdyer@star-telegram.com
Good. Nuclear Energy is the most practical solution to our energy problem. It is high time we get moving now.
Commies on the Colorado no like nuclear.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/14/0214nuke.html
It's not a coincidence that no nuke plants were built after 1979 -- without recycling the economics just weren't there
The solution is to reprocess the fuel, like the Europeans do
Texas is going to leave the rest of the US in the dust when it comes to the power industry. They are definitely going to have the last laugh.
The folks in Texas ought to be looking at nuclear power. On February 27th of this year there was a power emergency causing some large users to be kicked off the electrical grid. The cause ...not enough wind to power the state’s electricity generating windmils.
That has tended to be the norm on a lot of things. Problem is we’ll build our plants with illegal aliens and it’ll all fall apart within a decade. /sarc
Well if we can shut down half of a major city for a Presidential motorcade, it seems to me we can do the same thing for the nuucuular waste. Riiight?
That would certainly mitigate most, if not all of the transport risk.
Bring on the next tree hugger excuse.
If Hillary or Obama is elected these will never get built.
Personally, I'd put it right behind coal, but I live in a coal-rich area. Our cheapest power source in terms of total cost is coal. Of course, the greens and gloBULL warmists would like to change that!
>>Texas is going to leave the rest of the US in the dust when it comes to the power industry.
No they’re not.
We have just as many currently-operating nuclear plants here in GA, as TX does. And there are several more on the drawing board.
Now, enviro-whacko areas like CA and MA, that’s another thing altogether.
No comment necessary.
It’s not just nuclear power. They are building power capacity of all kinds like crazy because of deregulation. They may have higher electric rates now, but in the end, they are going to have the capacity, while the rest of the states have shortages. And that is going to be a very interesting comparison.
>> Texas is going to leave the rest of the US in the dust when it comes to the power industry.
>> No they’re not.
I’m a Texan so I’m rooting for Texas to win this one. :-)
But wouldn’t it be great if this spirit of competition for clean cheap energy takes root, and ALL the “red states” race to implement nuclear!
EVERYONE would win. Well, except the socialist states (e.g. California, Oregon); they’d be buying our power for megabucks.
And I sure hope the Arabs would feel the pinch. Eat sand, oil monkeys.
"Critics note that the Comanche Peak plant, the last nuclear facility built in the United States, took two decades to construct and cost about $11 billion, 12 times more than anticipated."
These two sections of the article a VERY intimately related. A key reason nuclear power costs so much is the the eco-lawyers file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, delaying the project, while the cost of the borrowed capital just keeps going up due to no income and interest payments.
Good for Texas. I plan to retire there.
We should be aiming to have 80% of our electricity generated by nuclear within 10-15 years. If electric cars become economical, we are going to see a HUGE increase in demand for electric power
I agree.
The next generation Prius will come out in 2009 or 2010 as a 2010 or 2011 model. I have some insider info that indicates that while initially it will use the same nickel metal hydride battery technology that the current one uses, that after a time (1-2 years) it will get lithium ion batteries.
Why is this important in the context of this thread?
The nickel metal hydride battery technology doesn’t lend itself to plug-in charging. That is why the add-on “hack your Prius” kits for plug-in operation include a battery pack, making them very expensive.
Lithium-ion batteries, however, lend themselves well to plug-in operation, and this will be built-in from the factory once the lithium-ion battery cars become available.
Another plus is that the lithium-ion batteries are much more environmentally friendly, since they don’t use all the heavy metals.
I ran some math based on the current Prius add-on kits, which seem to add about 20mpg at the cost of the kit plus some electrical charges. Ignoring the cost of the kit (since it’ll be “free” with the new-tech cars in a couple years), based on my cost of electricity, there’s no doubt that using electrical power to run your car is *very* cost competitive vs. $3.50 a gallon gas, even at 45 mpg (what the current Prius gets).
I’m starting to keep tabs on this. Nukes and gas-electric hybrids with plug-in supplementation may be a big part of our transportation energy solution.
Great article. Thanks for posting it.
“The solution is to reprocess the fuel, like the Europeans do.”
Actually - I think is is only the French who do the reprocessing. (Many European countries, like Germany, have distinctly anti-Nuke policies.) And the French also reprocess fuel from reactors in Japan. I think that some of our own utilities should explore paying the French to reprocess our fuel - which would lower storage costs and provide recycle fuel into the stream.
BTW - after 700 years, the discharged fuel from a reactor is less radioative that what was mined/extracted to make the fuel. The remaining products can have significant value. Plutonium can be reprocessed into more fuel for the reactor, and many of the decayed fission products are “rare earth elements” that might be of significant value for production of high temperature super conductors, or other new discoveries!
We should build “nuclear power complexes” that have 8 to 20 plants, and a recycle facility as part of the complex where spent fuel is recycled and reprocessed into new fuel for the reactors. This would eliminate the need to ship spent fuel around the country.
It would seem to me that increasing the appropriate budget to allow for sufficient staff so that the licensing process doesn’t take 10 years would be an appropriate use of government funds. Probably why it’ll never happen.
France, Great Britian, India, Japan and Russia have active Reprocessing plants. http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/reprocessing-plants-ww.htm
Good for energy
Good for Texas
Good for Texas jobs
Bad for AlGore and all his chicken littles
I don’t see a downside.
>> I think that some of our own utilities should explore paying the French to reprocess our fuel - which would lower storage costs and provide recycle fuel into the stream
Why ship spent fuel to France (and ship back reprocessed fuel) when we could do the reprocessing right here at home?
>> We should build “nuclear power complexes” that have 8 to 20 plants, and a recycle facility as part of the complex where spent fuel is recycled and reprocessed into new fuel for the reactors.
That’s a great idea! If you vote for me for “benevolent dictator for life”, I’ll pledge to build this complex in downtown Berkeley. (Or Ithaca, your choice).
>> If electric cars become economical, we are going to see a HUGE increase in demand for electric power
Besides additional generation capability, “the grid” is going to need some work as well.
Years ago, the US Government started billing nuclear utilities for fees for the eventual storage of spent fuel. Years later, the US Government has failed to honor the commitment (but the billing continues) to take spent fuel of the hands of the utilities ...and the utilities have had to pay to provide additional spent fuel storage AND continue to pay for the disposal. If the utilities could start getting France to reprocess the fuel, it would be a reminder of another failure of big government over something that already has a reasonable and workable solution!!
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.