Stirring_the_Pot
02-21-2010, 02:05 PM
http://urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/64/2259.html
With the retrograde thinking characteristic of it, the Obama Administration announced its support for the huge nuclear power plants of the past, and congressional Republicans stood up and applauded. Obama and the Republicans don't get how foolish this 1950s big government/big utility approach to nuclear power is.
Nuclear power is essential to add to our energy mix as quickly as possible for many reasons, including national security and generating the cheap, abundant electricity our economy needs. The notion that reintroducing the retrograde designs of the big nuclear power plants of the 1950s and 1960s under the umbrella of big utilities is necessary or desirable, however, is folly. Apart from the safety and reliability issues evidenced by the near catastrophe at the Three Mile Island reactors, and the disastrous reactor meltdown at Chernoblyl, big reactors are an expensive and unnecessary relic of old nuclear power thinking.
Modern nuclear power plant design and engineering points to the construction of small reactors, some as tiny as a hot tub. The utility industry is starting to understand this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html
"A new type of nuclear reactor—smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant—is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry.
Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.
Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.
The news comes just as President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in loan guarantees this week that would pave the way for the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years. He has proposed accelerating nuclear development by tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees for reactor construction to $54 billion.
The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.
"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.
He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.
Indeed, the smaller reactors still could incite major opposition. They face the same unresolved issues of where to put the waste and public fear of contamination, in the event of an accident. They could also raise alarms about creating possible terrorism targets in populated areas.
Still, the sudden interest in small reactors illustrates a growing unease with the route that nuclear power has taken for half a century. What many regard as the first commercial reactor built in the U.S., in 1957 at Shippingport, Pa., was only about 60 megawatts in size. By the time construction petered out three decades later, reactors had grown progressively bigger, ending up at about 1,000 megawatts of capacity.
Now, after a two-decade lull in construction, the U.S. is gearing up for a robust revival of nuclear power. Expanding the nuclear sector, which currently produces 20% of the nation's electricity, is considered essential to slashing carbon emissions."
Large nuclear reactors versus small nuclear reactors?
"Companies such as NRG Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=NRG) Inc., Duke Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=DUK) Corp. and Southern Co (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=SO). are planning large reactors that cost up to $10 billion apiece and can generate enough electricity to power a city the size of Tulsa, Okla. But there is growing investor worry that reactors may have grown so big that they could sink the utilities that buy them. An increasingly global supply chain for big reactors also worries investors.
"We think the probability that things will go wrong with these large projects is greater than the probability that things will go right," said Jim Hempstead, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service. He warns that nuclear-aspiring utilities with "bet the farm" projects face possible credit downgrades The large price tag has begun to spook some utility executives. John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon Corp. (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=EXC), which operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear plants, had hoped to build a new reactor in Texas. But, having failed to get federal loan guarantees, he recently said he's having second thoughts.
Instead, his company is expanding the capacity of its existing nuclear plants and is looking at Babcock & Wilcox's design. Amir Shakarami, Exelon's senior vice president, said mPower provides "an alternative that is practical and scalable," offering a way to add zero-emission power in small amounts and avoid the rate shocks that accompanied big reactors in the past.
Already, the high cost of large reactors is generating friction among partners. CPS Energy andNRG Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=NRG)Inc. sued each other recently when CPS, a city-owned utility in San Antonio got cold feet about investing in a new nuclear plant that could push up power costs for its customers. On Wednesday, the two agreed to a settlement in which CPS will reduce its stake in the project to 7.6% from 50% in exchange for a $90 million payment from NRG and dropping its lawsuit."
With the retrograde thinking characteristic of it, the Obama Administration announced its support for the huge nuclear power plants of the past, and congressional Republicans stood up and applauded. Obama and the Republicans don't get how foolish this 1950s big government/big utility approach to nuclear power is.
Nuclear power is essential to add to our energy mix as quickly as possible for many reasons, including national security and generating the cheap, abundant electricity our economy needs. The notion that reintroducing the retrograde designs of the big nuclear power plants of the 1950s and 1960s under the umbrella of big utilities is necessary or desirable, however, is folly. Apart from the safety and reliability issues evidenced by the near catastrophe at the Three Mile Island reactors, and the disastrous reactor meltdown at Chernoblyl, big reactors are an expensive and unnecessary relic of old nuclear power thinking.
Modern nuclear power plant design and engineering points to the construction of small reactors, some as tiny as a hot tub. The utility industry is starting to understand this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html
"A new type of nuclear reactor—smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant—is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry.
Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.
Although none have agreed to buy a reactor, the utilities' commitment should help build momentum behind the technology and hasten its adoption across the industry. It's a crucial first step toward getting the reactor design certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Early support from the three utilities, and four others that are mulling the agreement, increases the odds that customers will come forward in the future.
The news comes just as President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in loan guarantees this week that would pave the way for the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years. He has proposed accelerating nuclear development by tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees for reactor construction to $54 billion.
The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.
"We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology," said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.
He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there's "a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified" by the NRC for U.S. use.
Indeed, the smaller reactors still could incite major opposition. They face the same unresolved issues of where to put the waste and public fear of contamination, in the event of an accident. They could also raise alarms about creating possible terrorism targets in populated areas.
Still, the sudden interest in small reactors illustrates a growing unease with the route that nuclear power has taken for half a century. What many regard as the first commercial reactor built in the U.S., in 1957 at Shippingport, Pa., was only about 60 megawatts in size. By the time construction petered out three decades later, reactors had grown progressively bigger, ending up at about 1,000 megawatts of capacity.
Now, after a two-decade lull in construction, the U.S. is gearing up for a robust revival of nuclear power. Expanding the nuclear sector, which currently produces 20% of the nation's electricity, is considered essential to slashing carbon emissions."
Large nuclear reactors versus small nuclear reactors?
"Companies such as NRG Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=NRG) Inc., Duke Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=DUK) Corp. and Southern Co (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=SO). are planning large reactors that cost up to $10 billion apiece and can generate enough electricity to power a city the size of Tulsa, Okla. But there is growing investor worry that reactors may have grown so big that they could sink the utilities that buy them. An increasingly global supply chain for big reactors also worries investors.
"We think the probability that things will go wrong with these large projects is greater than the probability that things will go right," said Jim Hempstead, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service. He warns that nuclear-aspiring utilities with "bet the farm" projects face possible credit downgrades The large price tag has begun to spook some utility executives. John Rowe, the chief executive of Exelon Corp. (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=EXC), which operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear plants, had hoped to build a new reactor in Texas. But, having failed to get federal loan guarantees, he recently said he's having second thoughts.
Instead, his company is expanding the capacity of its existing nuclear plants and is looking at Babcock & Wilcox's design. Amir Shakarami, Exelon's senior vice president, said mPower provides "an alternative that is practical and scalable," offering a way to add zero-emission power in small amounts and avoid the rate shocks that accompanied big reactors in the past.
Already, the high cost of large reactors is generating friction among partners. CPS Energy andNRG Energy (http://urbanelephants.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=NRG)Inc. sued each other recently when CPS, a city-owned utility in San Antonio got cold feet about investing in a new nuclear plant that could push up power costs for its customers. On Wednesday, the two agreed to a settlement in which CPS will reduce its stake in the project to 7.6% from 50% in exchange for a $90 million payment from NRG and dropping its lawsuit."