NEW NUKES: NRG Energy hopes to build two new advanced boiling water reactors at its South Texas nuclear power plant site.
Image: COURTESY OF NRG
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The two reactors at the South Texas nuclear power plant, an hour southwest of Houston, last year churned out 21.37 billion kilowatt-hours. By 2015, its majority owner, New Jersey-based NRG Energy, hopes to at least double that capacity if it gets permission to build two more reactors on the site. The company filed the first application on Monday for a new nuclear power plant—two advanced boiling-water reactors—in more than 30 years.
"It is a new day for energy in America," David Crane, NRG president and chief executive officer, said after making the application. "Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions," including the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.
Armed with the backing of the White House and congressional leaders—and subsidies, such as $500 million in risk insurance from the U.S. Department of Energy— the nuclear industry is experiencing a revival in the U.S. As many as 29 new reactors may be added to the current U.S. fleet of 104, according to Bill Borchardt, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) office of new reactors. "It is going to be significantly different than it was in the 1970s," he says.
The South Texas project is the first entirely new reactor out of the gate, though it simply fulfills the original planning for four reactors at the site. The NRC says such upgrades of existing facilities are likely to comprise the majority of new nuclear power plants, all but one—a plant near Syracuse in central New York State— are in the Southeast or Texas. "At the majority of these sites, there's strong support for nuclear power," says Loren Plisco, NRC's deputy regional administrator for construction in the southeastern region.
The inactive reactor at Browns Ferry in northern Alabama was restarted in May after being shuttered for 22 years due to maintenance issues its owner, the Tennessee Valley Authority, decided would be too costly to fix. Completion of construction of a second reactor at TVA's Watts Bar power plant near Chattanooga in Tennessee has begun as well. The TVA expects to finish construction in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Its older twin at Watts Bar required 23 years to build at a total cost of nearly $7 billion, according to the TVA.
Such long delays and ballooning costs—paired with improvements in U.S. energy efficiency and reactor accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986—helped kill the first wave of nuclear power plant construction in the U.S. And the rebirth is not without controversy: Some environmentalists oppose the new construction, noting that all of the potential risks linked to nuclear power remain. "The flaws of nuclear power—excessive cost, security threats and long-lived radioactive waste—have not been solved," says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "More nuclear reactors will only exacerbate these problems."
In fact, the only shift in the debate is the growing acceptance of nuclear power as an alternative energy source to coal-fired generation, which spews globe-warming greenhouse gas emissions. "If we're not serious about building more nuclear energy [power plants] around the world, then we are not serious about addressing climate change," James Rogers, chief executive of North Carolina based–Duke Energy, said during remarks at the recent U.N. climate summit.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentGlobalists/environmists, sponsored by oil and financial industry, can spare us. Nuclear is safest, cheapest energy source out there. Instead of spilling empty rhetoric about "unsafe" and "new hydrogen and CCS technologies" - which are much more costly and much less safe, U.S. should've been building more nuclear plants. Plenty of empty land to do that. Getting off oil hook should be #1 priority....somewhat maybe unattainable with oil, defense and financial industry in control of all major U.S. political forces, including the White House...It's a shame though
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We wanted a technology built by someone on time and on budget," Crane says. "There was only one design that satisfied that criteria and that was [the advanced boiling-water reactor.]"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical that time and money are the two most important criteria. Digital controls with analog backup are supposed to increase safety. How about a design that is safe by design such as the CANDU reactor. Oh oh! That is foreign technology.
Also it is not cheap.
I am sure that the French and the Chinese would be able and (probably ) willing to assist with expertise in the design of Nuclear Power Station.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust remember to abstain from regularly insulting them.
However with George Bush due to depart, civility and civilised behaviour may return to your country.
The only reason any nuclear plant, has ever had a problem is the human effect. all you neeed is stock holders complaining about cost of running the plants and some pushover capitulating to them, then a matter time and stupidity, and WAM, you've got a deadly event. So if your a pro-lifer and have any moral integrity. nuclear power plants wouldn't even be on the table. so lets work on a safer source and stop being blind to the real issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't think these stock holders would do such a stupid thing, just look at the current meltdown at Wall-Street, There were a lot of high up board members against involving their institutions in the prime rate controversy, but the stock holders voted them off the board. These are the same people who hold major stock in all these plants, I for one am not that stupid.
Current reserves of uranium ores will last at the most for 70 years. If we double the number of reactors in the world that will be reduced to 35 years, the current lifespan of plants. And after?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThorium seems to have great promise as a nuclear fuel, there is about 3 times as much Thorium as Uranium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also much more efficient - about 40 times the amount of energy per unit of mass than Uranium.
Sounds like an ideal solution to the energy problem.
Evaluate the cost of managing nuclear waste from one nuclear plant during its life cycle, say 50 years. Multiply that time delay by the coefficient required to allow the radioactive wastes to decay to safe levels, that is several hundred for most wastes, or several million for plutonium. Multiply that figure by the number of nuclear plants running in the US alone. It is clear that the final figure increases astronomically. So, for one generation of nuclear power, where is the cost-effectiveness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fully support the peaceful use of Nuclear Power as a means to generate electricity and satisfy the world's appetite for energy. It is also urgent to adopt it in order to reduce CO2 and combat Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoin my Cause to Support Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming at:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/98619?m=96aaaf39&recruiter_id=16262590
Gen IV nuclear reactors burn present nuclear waste, cleaning up the environment and extending out the energy supply to 50,000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like a winner to me.
The solution is to get EVERY HOUSEHOLD to be contributing to the power grid instead of just buying. In that way we would all be supporting each other in power production. It is true that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine but they both are active some where all the time. The age of HUGE must pass. We have entered an age of micro works of all kinds, on a local scale. We can not keep transporting everything and depending on "others" to fulfill our every need. We must contribute also, as much as possible!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear that there is a lot of blind faith and innumeracy among the responders to this blog. Realize that the power issue does not stop at the power outlet, and there is a responsibility to come up with an alternative that is better once you've done the simple part of complaining. Wishing will not make solar and wind effective power sources. Do the math. The eco-nuts just want other people to stop breathing "their" air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a wise British politician once said: "If you are not a socialist at twenty five, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are forty, you have no brains."
Nuclear power is clean, safe, and proven effective. The smart detractors know that the defects of excessive cost and waste disposal are entirely creations of hysteria, fear, and politics. They just have their own agenda, and don't want the truth to be known. Keep following them blindly, or get smart and grow up. Your choice.
Gen IV are a great dream... but as yet just a dream. Until the technology can be proven, the choices must be made on what is actully available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: French Connection for Nuclear Assistance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't trust that option whatsoever, from personal experience. Areva is the head honcho there and I saw them come over here, consume and destroy a 50 year old U.S. nuclear radiation instrument company. Expertise we had they "stole", to eliminate competition, I think.
RE: U.S. Nuclear Engineering
We, the U.S., have many transferable technologists and can quickly develop needed infrastructure support for nuclear, but NUCLEAR TRUST needs to be reestablished. We must get back on track.
RE: Clean Coal
I'd rather have a new nuclear plant nearby than a new coal plant trying to bury 20 million tons per year of CO2. Do the math: Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of & coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
Today in the U.S., Every man, woman and child burns 20 pounds of coal a day. Clean Coal, PBS
RENEWABLE SOURCES just CANNOT MEET the future electricity capacity NEEDS.
No other real good options to more nuclear powered electricity here folks!
As part of the work force that helped build some of the nuclear power plants in the mid 70's I would hope that we don't repeat past mistakes. On the plants being built in Washington state, notably Hanford WPPS units 1 & 2 the drawings were being updated on a daily basis while trying to build them. With all of the changes it's no surprise that the costs spiralled out of control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we do get back on track and actually build these plants we need a solid plan, not one being updated during construction. P.S. Is this going to re-ignite the Yuca mountain storage all over again? What's being planned for the eventual waste products?
Don't get me wrong I believe Nuclear power is the way to meet our power needs but we also need somewhere for the dangerous by-products.