Over the last few days, two recent developments in the wait for the final Department of Energy loan guarantee have sparked conversation.
According to reports, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) plans to lend up to $4 billion to fund the NRG South Texas nuclear project. If this loan goes through it would be the country’s first state financing for an atomic power station abroad. But for the government-run bank to hand over any cash to fund the project, it must be guaranteed by the U.S. government. This loan deal could encourage utilities to invest in nuclear projects abroad which would support Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s goal of exporting infrastructure to boost the Japanese economy.
In the second development, The Washington Post reported that Constellation Energy is in disagreement with its French partner, Electricite de France, over a business deal. Both Constellation and EDF are equal partners in UniStar. UniStar wants to build a fleet of new reactors in the U.S. starting with a third unit at Constellation’s Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland.
The disagreement reportedly stems from the $2 billion option that would force EDF to buy several of Constellation’s gas, coal and hydro plants. Like the South Texas project, Calvert Cliffs is waiting on a decision from the DOE on the federal loan guarantee.
I interviewed Mark Marano, Areva senior vice president of U.S. new build operations, for Power Engineering magazine’s Nuclear Power Executive Roundtable being published in the November issue.
“Both UniStar and NRG have been forced to scale back due to delays in receiving the conditional loan guarantees. The delay will clearly slow any efforts to spur any growth and any investment and any creation of jobs,” he said. “And the result sadly enough - we won’t be just talking about stimulating and adding jobs - the lack of action on loan guarantees could inherently cause the reverse reaction which is just the opposite of what its intent was.”
The November issue of Power Engineering magazine features my complete roundtable discussions with five industry experts. Among the topics discussed: Federal Loan Guarantees.
The industry as a whole and especially those looking at new build out continue to wait to see what the DOE’s next move is. But someone will get the loan, right?
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Nuclear waste can be stored safely for up 60 years after life of reactor, says NRC
16 September 2010 - Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants can be stored safely for up to 60 years beyond the licensed life of a reactor.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released this finding this week and approved final revisions to its “Waste Confidence” regulation, previously stating waste could be stored safely for 30 years.
“The extension of the original language of 30 years to 60 years is the reflection of increased confidence in the confidence of the casks. When the 30-year period was written the casks were still a fairly new system,” said NRC spokesperson David McIntyre.
This all comes at a time when regulators are still considering the fate of Yucca Mountain in Nev., a proposed repository for nuclear waste that the Department of Energy has motioned to withdraw its application from. The original waste confidence regulation stated that the Commission was confident that there would be at least one operational mined geological repository in the first quarter of the 21st century. While the Obama administration has stopped the Yucca Mountain project for the time being, President Obama has asked a panel of experts to recommend alternatives; recommendations that are not due until January 2012. So the Commission has removed language discussing the operation of a permanent repository and stated that “sufficient repository capacity will be available when necessary.” The NRC did emphasize that the revisions of the waste confidence findings and rule are not intended to signal an endorsement of indefinite storage of spent fuel at reactor sites.
"Today the commission affirmed our confidence that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely and securely without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years after operation at any nuclear power plant." said NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko in a prepared statement. “We also directed the NRC staff to conduct additional analysis for longer-term storage to ensure that we remain fully informed by current circumstances and scientific knowledge relating to spent fuel storage and disposal.”
This finding also comes at a time when new nuclear build is grabbing the headlines in the media surrounding the nuclear power industry. Federal loan guarantees are in place for new nuclear power plants to be constructed which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. due to the fact that nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide. This new rule could possibly eliminate some concerns about waste storage in the U.S. as part of the licensing new facilities; a concern that opposition to nuclear power tends to bring up. Currently NRC has received 13 applications to license 22 new reactors.
McIntyre said that with another decade of experience along with additional testing, monitoring and looking at security aspects after 9/11 it gives the NRC extra confidence in the casks design from a long term safety standpoint. He continued on to say that since the waste can be stored safely, waste storage is not an issue that opponents of nuclear plants can contest in an adjunction hearing.
The NRC has 60 days to incorporate the revisions to the Waste Confidence rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released this finding this week and approved final revisions to its “Waste Confidence” regulation, previously stating waste could be stored safely for 30 years.
“The extension of the original language of 30 years to 60 years is the reflection of increased confidence in the confidence of the casks. When the 30-year period was written the casks were still a fairly new system,” said NRC spokesperson David McIntyre.
This all comes at a time when regulators are still considering the fate of Yucca Mountain in Nev., a proposed repository for nuclear waste that the Department of Energy has motioned to withdraw its application from. The original waste confidence regulation stated that the Commission was confident that there would be at least one operational mined geological repository in the first quarter of the 21st century. While the Obama administration has stopped the Yucca Mountain project for the time being, President Obama has asked a panel of experts to recommend alternatives; recommendations that are not due until January 2012. So the Commission has removed language discussing the operation of a permanent repository and stated that “sufficient repository capacity will be available when necessary.” The NRC did emphasize that the revisions of the waste confidence findings and rule are not intended to signal an endorsement of indefinite storage of spent fuel at reactor sites.
"Today the commission affirmed our confidence that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely and securely without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years after operation at any nuclear power plant." said NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko in a prepared statement. “We also directed the NRC staff to conduct additional analysis for longer-term storage to ensure that we remain fully informed by current circumstances and scientific knowledge relating to spent fuel storage and disposal.”
This finding also comes at a time when new nuclear build is grabbing the headlines in the media surrounding the nuclear power industry. Federal loan guarantees are in place for new nuclear power plants to be constructed which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. due to the fact that nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide. This new rule could possibly eliminate some concerns about waste storage in the U.S. as part of the licensing new facilities; a concern that opposition to nuclear power tends to bring up. Currently NRC has received 13 applications to license 22 new reactors.
McIntyre said that with another decade of experience along with additional testing, monitoring and looking at security aspects after 9/11 it gives the NRC extra confidence in the casks design from a long term safety standpoint. He continued on to say that since the waste can be stored safely, waste storage is not an issue that opponents of nuclear plants can contest in an adjunction hearing.
The NRC has 60 days to incorporate the revisions to the Waste Confidence rule.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
"Coal is base load generation king in the U.S."
August 10, 2010 - Tuesday morning's keynote session at COAL-GEN 2010 featured three informative speakers that opened up continued dialogue between the delegates across the exhibition floor. James Wood from the Department of Energy, Dr. Robert Wayland from the Environmental Protection Agency and Penn State Social Science Professor Frank Clemente all delivered insightful speeches on not only the current and future status of coal-fired generation, but energy as a whole.
As the U.S. population grows the need for electricity will continue to rise and coal is going to be in the mix of power generation. Prof. Clemente described during his presentation that by the year 2030 four billion people globally will get 40 percent of their electricity from coal-based generation. Just here in the U.S. coal represents almost 50 percent of the total power generation. But as the power providers continue to burn coal and companies look to build new coal-fired plants, there are regulations in place to cut down on emissions. EPA is working on several National Air Quality Standards that will reduce the amount of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter released. EPA has also proposed to strengthen the 8-hour primary ozone standard to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (ppm) to protect public health. And for companies operating coal-fired plants they may have to comply with the new standards being set forth by EPA.
EPA has created an Integrated Utility Strategy that has the vision of an electric power sector in a clean energy economy. All pieces of the larger puzzle are the newly proposed Transport Rule that covers 31 states and D.C., utility MACT (maximum achievable control technology), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) along with regulations from the Office of Water and Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. But retrofitting plants to meet new standards is not cheap.
"It's sure true that if coal based generation is going to stay as base load in the U.S. the technologies that will need to be put in place for carbon capture and sequestration will have to be competitive in capital and operating costs," said Wood.
And Dr. Wayland stated that in order to avoid wasting investment and stranding assets the process has to be completed in a sequence and timely manner.
“There is new data coming in now to be used in the new MACT rule,” said Wayland.
And while companies will attempt to comply with new EPA standards in the future, Prof. Clemente insisted that coal is the answer for electricity generation in the U.S. Currently over 20 states get 45 percent of their power generation from what Prof. Clemente described as an energy secured, versatile fuel.
So what does the next 20 years look like for coal generation? No one can be so sure to say that they know exactly where the industry will stand but both Wood and Wayland stated that by the 2030 timeframe coal-fired plants should be in the mid-40 range for efficiency and be achieving zero emissions. When Power Engineering Chief Editor asked Wayland if zero emission is achievable, the answer was “by 2020 to 2030, yes it is.”
And while natural gas plants continue to come online in the U.S. along with renewables, "coal is base load generation king in the U.S,” said Wayland.
As the U.S. population grows the need for electricity will continue to rise and coal is going to be in the mix of power generation. Prof. Clemente described during his presentation that by the year 2030 four billion people globally will get 40 percent of their electricity from coal-based generation. Just here in the U.S. coal represents almost 50 percent of the total power generation. But as the power providers continue to burn coal and companies look to build new coal-fired plants, there are regulations in place to cut down on emissions. EPA is working on several National Air Quality Standards that will reduce the amount of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter released. EPA has also proposed to strengthen the 8-hour primary ozone standard to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (ppm) to protect public health. And for companies operating coal-fired plants they may have to comply with the new standards being set forth by EPA.
EPA has created an Integrated Utility Strategy that has the vision of an electric power sector in a clean energy economy. All pieces of the larger puzzle are the newly proposed Transport Rule that covers 31 states and D.C., utility MACT (maximum achievable control technology), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) along with regulations from the Office of Water and Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. But retrofitting plants to meet new standards is not cheap.
"It's sure true that if coal based generation is going to stay as base load in the U.S. the technologies that will need to be put in place for carbon capture and sequestration will have to be competitive in capital and operating costs," said Wood.
And Dr. Wayland stated that in order to avoid wasting investment and stranding assets the process has to be completed in a sequence and timely manner.
“There is new data coming in now to be used in the new MACT rule,” said Wayland.
And while companies will attempt to comply with new EPA standards in the future, Prof. Clemente insisted that coal is the answer for electricity generation in the U.S. Currently over 20 states get 45 percent of their power generation from what Prof. Clemente described as an energy secured, versatile fuel.
So what does the next 20 years look like for coal generation? No one can be so sure to say that they know exactly where the industry will stand but both Wood and Wayland stated that by the 2030 timeframe coal-fired plants should be in the mid-40 range for efficiency and be achieving zero emissions. When Power Engineering Chief Editor asked Wayland if zero emission is achievable, the answer was “by 2020 to 2030, yes it is.”
And while natural gas plants continue to come online in the U.S. along with renewables, "coal is base load generation king in the U.S,” said Wayland.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Bruce Mansfield Power Plant Tour
August 9, 2010 - To kick off COAL-GEN 2010, Monday morning I had the privilege of touring FirstEnergy's largest coal-fired power plant, the Bruce Mansfield station in Shippingport, Pa. The Bruce Mansfield plant is one of 7 fossil plants that FirstEnergy owns and operates and almost 40 COAL-GEN delegates took the 45 minute bus ride to attend the tour as well.
The three unit 2,460 MW station is situated along the Ohio River about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. Unit 1, which was completed in 1976, generates 830 MW. Unit 2 came online a year later and also generates 830 MW. And 800 MW capacity Unit 3 came online in 1980. Upon arrival the generous hosts at FirstEnergy greeted us with a short introductory video and the tour was underway. Our tour guides, Jeff and Doug, gave us the full tour through the turbine room, the control room, past the pulverizers and boilers and even up to the roof of the plant. The entire tour was very informative but my personal favorite was getting out onto the roof of the plant. Although going up to the 17th floor was hotter than anything I have ever experienced, including humid Oklahoma summers, the view from the top was spectacular.
From the roof we could see the operation of the plant. As well as a never-ending view down the Ohio River. On the river sit coal unloading stations for barges that deliver about 3,000 tons of coal per hour. The birds'-eye-view also gave us the opportunity to see the huge coal yard. A large coal yard is needed because the Bruce Mansfield plant burns nearly 24,000 tons of coal per day and more than 7 million tons annually.
A lot of people tend to refer to power plants by the "huge, clouds of smoke" coming from enormous towers. Although those plumes are not smoke, the towers are large and are attached to a plant. And the Bruce Mansfield plant does use cooling towers. The plant uses about 70 million gallons of water per day from the Ohio River. Three 410-foot cooling towers reduce the temperature of about 310,000 gallons of water per minute by 27 degrees. Cooling towers are so synonymous with power plants that it was only appropriate to take the group picture standing underneath the large structures.
I can say the tour of the Bruce Mansfield plant was enjoyable for all participants, including myself. The 40 delegates from all over the globe were very enthusiastic about the operations of the plant and that made being the technical tour leader that much more enjoyable.
The three unit 2,460 MW station is situated along the Ohio River about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. Unit 1, which was completed in 1976, generates 830 MW. Unit 2 came online a year later and also generates 830 MW. And 800 MW capacity Unit 3 came online in 1980. Upon arrival the generous hosts at FirstEnergy greeted us with a short introductory video and the tour was underway. Our tour guides, Jeff and Doug, gave us the full tour through the turbine room, the control room, past the pulverizers and boilers and even up to the roof of the plant. The entire tour was very informative but my personal favorite was getting out onto the roof of the plant. Although going up to the 17th floor was hotter than anything I have ever experienced, including humid Oklahoma summers, the view from the top was spectacular.From the roof we could see the operation of the plant. As well as a never-ending view down the Ohio River. On the river sit coal unloading stations for barges that deliver about 3,000 tons of coal per hour. The birds'-eye-view also gave us the opportunity to see the huge coal yard. A large coal yard is needed because the Bruce Mansfield plant burns nearly 24,000 tons of coal per day and more than 7 million tons annually. Looking down on the air quality control systems (AQCS) we had the opportunity to see the scrubbers and absorbers between the boilers and the 950-foot tall chimney for Units 1 and 2. Unit 3 is equipped with with a precipiatator/absorber system consisting of four electrostatic precipitators, four induced draft fans, five parallel absorber modules and a 600-foot tall stack. All three units use Selective Catalytic Reduction systems to eliminate about 90 percent of nitrogen oxides from the flue gases. And with the use of the AQCS the Bruce Mansfield station removes 92 percent of sulfur dioxide from boiler flue gas.
A lot of people tend to refer to power plants by the "huge, clouds of smoke" coming from enormous towers. Although those plumes are not smoke, the towers are large and are attached to a plant. And the Bruce Mansfield plant does use cooling towers. The plant uses about 70 million gallons of water per day from the Ohio River. Three 410-foot cooling towers reduce the temperature of about 310,000 gallons of water per minute by 27 degrees. Cooling towers are so synonymous with power plants that it was only appropriate to take the group picture standing underneath the large structures.I can say the tour of the Bruce Mansfield plant was enjoyable for all participants, including myself. The 40 delegates from all over the globe were very enthusiastic about the operations of the plant and that made being the technical tour leader that much more enjoyable.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The U.S. nuclear renaissance coming to an end already?
August, 4 2010 - While the United States nuclear industry is continuing on its path to expand, there seems to be a roadblock for some companies. Cost. The capital cost for nuclear power plants is not cheap and this had led to some companies cutting back spending and even looking at canceling planned new nuclear development.
NRG Energy Inc. said it would cut spending on two new reactors planned at the South Texas Project from $7.5 million a month in July to $1.5 million a month. But NRG isn’t alone. Constellation Energy Group announced in late July it would cut spending on the planned Calvert Cliffs III reactor in Maryland. Both are waiting on a decision from the Department of Energy for a federal loan guarantee. Constellation has even stated it could completely shut down operations in Maryland by the end of the year if it hadn’t received a federal guarantee.
“This shows you the difficulty in this market and how important the loan program is to supporting the projects and getting them off the ground,” said Leslie Kass, Nuclear Energy Institute senior director of business policy and programs.
Since the DOE awarded Southern Co. an $8.3 billion loan guarantee in February for the Plant Vogtle project, NRG Energy, Constellation and Scana Corp. have been in competition for the remaining guarantee. DOE only has about $10 billion remaining of guaranteed money, enough for only one project.
“There is a challenge since they only have the funding for one project and it is very difficult to select just one when they are all so good,” said Kass. “And splitting it (the only current remaining loan guarantee) three ways does nobody any good.’
But Southern Co.’s loan was awarded almost six months ago. Why the holdup for the next announcement?
The DOE said that before a conditional commitment can be offered each project is thoroughly reviewed by the DOE’s Loan Program Office from a financial, environmental, legal and feasibility standpoint. While the DOE reviews each project, each company waits.
And those companies are waiting on the conditional commitment, not the money. But Kass thinks that a conditional commitment is enough to give them faith to go forward but “if they don’t have a clear path to financing, which is extremely difficult in a merchant market right now, they simply have to be prudent.”
And the DOE said their first priority is to minimize risk to taxpayers.
But being in a rate regulated market, Scana is different form NRG and Constellation. Scana can recover financing costs and return on equity as they go through the public service commission. The loan guarantee program improves cash flow and helps with ratings and its can give them another mechanism for support that is not available in the merchant markets.
“This is a good program for them because it can help save money for rate payers, but it is not as essential as it is for merchant plants,” said Kass.
Having already spent about $1 billion, Kass said Scana is going to continue to move forward with the already in progress construction as they wait on both DOE’s decision on the loan guarantee and NRC’s decision on a license.
As stated, NRG will continue to spend, but just not a much. If Constellation does not receive the loan guarantee, could this be the first company to put the brakes on the nuclear renaissance in the U.S.? Or will Congress increase funding levels for the loan guarantee program?
As the industry as a whole waits to see what happens next, DOE did tell me “we hope to make a nuclear loan announcement soon.”
NRG Energy Inc. said it would cut spending on two new reactors planned at the South Texas Project from $7.5 million a month in July to $1.5 million a month. But NRG isn’t alone. Constellation Energy Group announced in late July it would cut spending on the planned Calvert Cliffs III reactor in Maryland. Both are waiting on a decision from the Department of Energy for a federal loan guarantee. Constellation has even stated it could completely shut down operations in Maryland by the end of the year if it hadn’t received a federal guarantee.
“This shows you the difficulty in this market and how important the loan program is to supporting the projects and getting them off the ground,” said Leslie Kass, Nuclear Energy Institute senior director of business policy and programs.
Since the DOE awarded Southern Co. an $8.3 billion loan guarantee in February for the Plant Vogtle project, NRG Energy, Constellation and Scana Corp. have been in competition for the remaining guarantee. DOE only has about $10 billion remaining of guaranteed money, enough for only one project.
“There is a challenge since they only have the funding for one project and it is very difficult to select just one when they are all so good,” said Kass. “And splitting it (the only current remaining loan guarantee) three ways does nobody any good.’
But Southern Co.’s loan was awarded almost six months ago. Why the holdup for the next announcement?
The DOE said that before a conditional commitment can be offered each project is thoroughly reviewed by the DOE’s Loan Program Office from a financial, environmental, legal and feasibility standpoint. While the DOE reviews each project, each company waits.
And those companies are waiting on the conditional commitment, not the money. But Kass thinks that a conditional commitment is enough to give them faith to go forward but “if they don’t have a clear path to financing, which is extremely difficult in a merchant market right now, they simply have to be prudent.”
And the DOE said their first priority is to minimize risk to taxpayers.
But being in a rate regulated market, Scana is different form NRG and Constellation. Scana can recover financing costs and return on equity as they go through the public service commission. The loan guarantee program improves cash flow and helps with ratings and its can give them another mechanism for support that is not available in the merchant markets.
“This is a good program for them because it can help save money for rate payers, but it is not as essential as it is for merchant plants,” said Kass.
Having already spent about $1 billion, Kass said Scana is going to continue to move forward with the already in progress construction as they wait on both DOE’s decision on the loan guarantee and NRC’s decision on a license.
As stated, NRG will continue to spend, but just not a much. If Constellation does not receive the loan guarantee, could this be the first company to put the brakes on the nuclear renaissance in the U.S.? Or will Congress increase funding levels for the loan guarantee program?
As the industry as a whole waits to see what happens next, DOE did tell me “we hope to make a nuclear loan announcement soon.”
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Let's meet in Pittsburgh!
July 22 - In just a matter of weeks the coal industry will get the opportunity to come together and discuss anything and everything related to coal-fired power generation. An anticipated crowd of over 4,500 attendees and 350 exhibitors will converge upon the David L. Lawrence Center in Pittsburgh, Pa. Aug. 8-12 for COAL-GEN 2010. This year marks the 10th anniversary for the industry’s most informative event. The sessions during COAL-GEN 2010 will cover all the latest topics that affect the design, development, upgrading and operation and maintenance of coal-fired power plants. During the conference, attendees will get the chance to listen to industry leaders discuss topics ranging from “co-firing coal and biomass” to “NOx control regulation and dry SOx control technologies” to “boiler optimization innovations.”
Kicking off the stay in Pittsburgh, on Monday morning I get the privilege of hosting the technical tour at the Bruce Mansfield Power Station for Power Engineering magazine. I, along with other COAL-GEN 2010 attendees, will get to see the 2,460 MW capacity station up close, inside and out. The plant, which uses more than seven million tons of coal annually and has three separate coal-fired units, will be a great place to start off the stay in The ‘Burgh.
The keynote session on Tuesday morning provides three outstanding speakers for conference ‘goers to listen to:
Mr. James F. Woods is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal in the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy. With over 30 years of experience in the power industry, he is responsible for the management and direction of the Office’s clean coal research and development programs.
Dr. Robert Wayland is the Leader of the Combustion Group for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Having over 20 years experience in air quality programs, Dr. Wayland manages the development of air regulations for industrial and utility combustion sources. He is also involved in the Agency’s development of multi-pollutant emissions strategy for the utility sector which includes the final Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Professor Frank Clemente, a professor of Social Science at Penn State University, is the former Director of the university’s Environmental Policy Center. Prof. Clemente has published more than 100 articles in energy related media and his research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.
All three speakers will have very timely topics for us all to listen and take notes to. I am excited to attend this event and expand my knowledge on not just the coal-fired generation aspect of power generation, but power generation as a whole.
I hope to see you in Pittsburgh!
For a complete list of conference activities, log onto the COAL-GEN 2010 website.
Kicking off the stay in Pittsburgh, on Monday morning I get the privilege of hosting the technical tour at the Bruce Mansfield Power Station for Power Engineering magazine. I, along with other COAL-GEN 2010 attendees, will get to see the 2,460 MW capacity station up close, inside and out. The plant, which uses more than seven million tons of coal annually and has three separate coal-fired units, will be a great place to start off the stay in The ‘Burgh.
The keynote session on Tuesday morning provides three outstanding speakers for conference ‘goers to listen to:
Mr. James F. Woods is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clean Coal in the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy. With over 30 years of experience in the power industry, he is responsible for the management and direction of the Office’s clean coal research and development programs.
Dr. Robert Wayland is the Leader of the Combustion Group for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Having over 20 years experience in air quality programs, Dr. Wayland manages the development of air regulations for industrial and utility combustion sources. He is also involved in the Agency’s development of multi-pollutant emissions strategy for the utility sector which includes the final Clean Air Interstate Rule.
Professor Frank Clemente, a professor of Social Science at Penn State University, is the former Director of the university’s Environmental Policy Center. Prof. Clemente has published more than 100 articles in energy related media and his research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.
All three speakers will have very timely topics for us all to listen and take notes to. I am excited to attend this event and expand my knowledge on not just the coal-fired generation aspect of power generation, but power generation as a whole.
I hope to see you in Pittsburgh!
For a complete list of conference activities, log onto the COAL-GEN 2010 website.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S.?
July 13, 2010
With the oil crisis in the Gulf and the newly released transport rule from the EPA calling for reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions that would cross state lines, the nuclear renaissance conversation seems to be picking up again in the States. But Westinghouse Senior Vice President of Nuclear Power Plants Deva Chari said the oil spill in the Gulf will no have no impact, whether positive or negative, on the future of nuclear power generation.
Learning lessons from the Three Mile Island accident, the nuclear industry is gaining interest in the U.S. That is shown with the 18 applications for operating licenses submitted to the NRC over the last three years. Thirteen of those applications are currently under review by the NRC.
“The future is extremely bright,” said Chari.
And the Obama administration has made it clear that it will support new nuclear plants in this country. On Feb. 16, President Obama awarded the first loan guarantee for a nuclear plant under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The award of $8.3 billion for two additional reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia is conditional until the plant receives the combine construction and operating license from the NRC, which is expected in 2011.
“This is so important not just for Georgia, not just for Georgia Power, but it is important I think for the future of nuclear power in this country,” said Georgia Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise.
Another major developing project in the U.S. is at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. South Carolina Electric and Gas plans to build two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to add on to the current 966 MW being produced. If the NRC issues the construction license in 2011 then SCE&G plan to bring the first of the new units online in 2016.
NEI Senior Director of Business Policy and Programs Leslie Kass said they see new construction getting off the ground with more fully developed construction schedules.
“Depending on how those projects go, and we expect them to go very well, we think things will take off,” said Kass.
If the industry does get the boost it needs, Kass thinks we will see four to eight plants online by the 2016-2020 timeframe with companies taking steps to get back into the market when more financial recovery happens.
So it seems to be a talking point right now in the industry that we can expect to see a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. But hasn’t this conversation come up in the past? And if the U.S. is going to see a nuclear renaissance, then the next question is how large.
In the September issue of Nuclear Power International I will be reporting on new projects taking place both in the United States and internationally. Focusing on cost, my discussions with nuclear power executives will give us a better picture of where the industry is moving from here.
With the oil crisis in the Gulf and the newly released transport rule from the EPA calling for reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions that would cross state lines, the nuclear renaissance conversation seems to be picking up again in the States. But Westinghouse Senior Vice President of Nuclear Power Plants Deva Chari said the oil spill in the Gulf will no have no impact, whether positive or negative, on the future of nuclear power generation.
Learning lessons from the Three Mile Island accident, the nuclear industry is gaining interest in the U.S. That is shown with the 18 applications for operating licenses submitted to the NRC over the last three years. Thirteen of those applications are currently under review by the NRC.
“The future is extremely bright,” said Chari.
And the Obama administration has made it clear that it will support new nuclear plants in this country. On Feb. 16, President Obama awarded the first loan guarantee for a nuclear plant under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The award of $8.3 billion for two additional reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia is conditional until the plant receives the combine construction and operating license from the NRC, which is expected in 2011.
“This is so important not just for Georgia, not just for Georgia Power, but it is important I think for the future of nuclear power in this country,” said Georgia Public Service Commissioner Stan Wise.
Another major developing project in the U.S. is at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. South Carolina Electric and Gas plans to build two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to add on to the current 966 MW being produced. If the NRC issues the construction license in 2011 then SCE&G plan to bring the first of the new units online in 2016.
NEI Senior Director of Business Policy and Programs Leslie Kass said they see new construction getting off the ground with more fully developed construction schedules.
“Depending on how those projects go, and we expect them to go very well, we think things will take off,” said Kass.
If the industry does get the boost it needs, Kass thinks we will see four to eight plants online by the 2016-2020 timeframe with companies taking steps to get back into the market when more financial recovery happens.
So it seems to be a talking point right now in the industry that we can expect to see a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. But hasn’t this conversation come up in the past? And if the U.S. is going to see a nuclear renaissance, then the next question is how large.
In the September issue of Nuclear Power International I will be reporting on new projects taking place both in the United States and internationally. Focusing on cost, my discussions with nuclear power executives will give us a better picture of where the industry is moving from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)