Aletho News

Two decades after Chernobyl, Scottish sheep get all-clear

By Rob Edwards | The Herald | 4 July 2010

NEARLY a quarter of a century after the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in the Ukraine exploded and spewed radioactivity across the world, it has finally stopped making Scottish sheep too “hot” to eat.

For the first time since the accident, levels of radioactive contamination in sheep on all Scottish farms dropped below safety limits last month, enabling the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to lift restrictions. Controls on the movement and sale of sheep have been in force since after the explosion in 1986.

The Chernobyl reactor near Kiev scattered a massive cloud of radioactivity over Europe after it overheated, caught fire and ripped apart because of errors made by control room staff.

It was the world’s worst nuclear accident, and has been blamed for causing tens of thousands of deaths from cancers.

Peat and grass in upland areas of Scotland were polluted with radioactive caesium-137 released by the reactor, blown across Europe and brought to ground by rain.

This grass was eaten and recycled by sheep, and has persisted in the environment far longer than originally anticipated.

In 1987, the restrictions covered 73 farms across southwest and central Scotland. Animals that contained more than 1,000 becquerels of ­radioactivity per kilo were banned from being slaughtered for food.

In April 2009, there were still 3,000 sheep at five farms in Stirling and Ayrshire under restrictions. But now, according to an announcement from the FSA, there are none.

An FSA spokesperson said: “Since the early 1990s an annual post-Chernobyl sheep monitoring programme has been carried out on restricted areas in Scotland.

“Over time, radioactivity levels have continued to decline, and, as of February 2010, only two areas in Scotland remained under restrictions. Of these, one area has been taken out of agricultural use, so is no longer being used to farm sheep, and the other area was removed from restrictions on 21 June 2010.”

Dr Richard Dixon, the director of environmental charity WWF Scotland, pointed out that a whole generation had been born and grown up since the Chernobyl disaster.

“It has taken nearly 25 years for the contamination of Scottish soils to decay to officially safe levels – and we’re 1,400 miles away,” he said. “This is a timely reminder of the folly of the UK government’s enthusiasm for a new generation of nuclear reactors.

July 5, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Canada to Supply Uranium to India and China

India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

By Dave Brown –  Uranium Investing News

On June 27, The Prime Ministers of Canada and India signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement.  The deal provides for cooperation in civil nuclear energy including import of uranium and equipment from Canada, underscoring cooperation in the fields of nuclear waste management and radiation safety.

India expects to have 12 new reactors running by 2020, consuming an extra 1,500 tonnes of uranium per year. Other projects are expected, making India’s civilian nuclear sector worth $25-billion to $50-billion over the next 20 years.  Dr. Chaitanyamoy Ganguly, the President of the small Indian division of Cameco (TSX: CCO), the world’s largest uranium miner, said Canada could soon be exporting 2,000 tonnes of uranium to India annually. Canada has some natural competitive advantages over other countries in the Indian market because many of India’s reactors are already based on Canadian CANDU technology and because Australia has refused to sell uranium until India signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  India has also signed civil nuclear cooperation agreements with the USA, Russia, France, UK, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Namibia.

Cameco signed an agreement on June 24 with China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation (CNEIC), a subsidiary of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), to supply China’s largest nuclear generator with uranium concentrate under a long-term agreement through 2020.  The deal would see Cameco supplying approximately 23 million pounds over the next 10 years to CNNC, which currently operates seven reactors with a total capacity of 5,100 MW.  The state-owned CNNC, in operation for nearly 50 years, expects to be one of the world’s leading nuclear power companies by 2020 with 10 reactors under construction totaling capacity of 9,100 MW.

Cameco also has also agreed to pursue long-term non binding co-operation opportunities with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co., Ltd. (CGNPC) to supply uranium fuel for its growing fleet of nuclear power plants.  This agreement will see a strategic alliance between Cameco and China’s largest clean-energy enterprise with the largest number of nuclear power plants under construction in the world.   CGNPC needs uranium to fuel its four existing reactors and indicates that it has about 20,000 MW of nuclear capacity under construction with expectations of over 50,000 MW on line by 2020.

Jerry Grandey, Cameco’s CEO, seemed very pleased with these announcements, “Our plan to double uranium production by 2018 aligns well with China’s vigorous reactor construction program.”  Chinese estimates indicate the country is expecting to increase its nuclear capacity from the current 9 GW to at least 70 GW by 2020 with a further increase to at least 120-160 GW planned by 2030… Full article

Aletho News notes that Canadian based Cameco Resources, which is the largest U.S. uranium producer, operates an in situ leaching plant near Glenrock, Wyoming. – link

June 29, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Vermont Yankee confirms cracks in cooling pipes

By Susan Smallheer | Rutland Herald | June 23, 2010

BRATTLEBORO — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed Tuesday evening that a large fiberglass pipe in the recently rebuilt cooling towers at Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor had developed an 18-inch crack and was leaking water.

Another crack developed in a joint in another location along the same pipe, a spokeswoman for the NRC said.

The disclosure of the cracks in the large distribution or header pipe in the east cooling tower comes after Entergy recently completed rebuilding the infrastructure of the two cooling towers over the past three years, after the western tower partially collapsed in August 2007.

Samuel Collins, Region One administrator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Donald Jackson, another NRC official, comfirmed the cracks in the cooling tower pipe during a public meeting over the annual assessment of the plant’s operation and condition held at Brattleboro Union High School. There are cracks in cell 1-5 and cell 1-8 in the east tower, which is closest to the Connecticut River.

Until the issue was brought up by Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor to the nuclear watchdog group The New England Coalition, about two hours into the meeting, neither Entergy nor NRC officials had mentioned the problem, which was discovered Thursday by Entergy. The leaks have already undergone a temporary repair, according to Entergy spokesman Larry Smith.

Smith said the two leaks were spilling about 10 gallons a minute, where the large pipe had tapered to 30 inches in diameter. The pipe, which is 36 inches in diameter at it largest spot, carries 90,000 gallons a minute.

The cracks, which were discovered in fiberplastic pipe that is original to the cooling towers, have been reinforced by strapping, he said.

Unlike the cooling tower collapse in 2007, which also involved the header or distribution pipe, which runs along the top of the cooling tower, the structure under the pipe did not collapse, Smith said.

“It was not a structural issue,” he said. In 2007, the cause of the collapse was traced back to rotted wood in the west tower.

Diane Screnci said after the public meeting Entergy will have to determine what caused the pipe to crack in two different locations.

The NRC and Entergy were busy Tuesday discussing Vermont Yankee in a variety of forums. Earlier in the day, Entergy Nuclear held a press conference in Vernon to discuss the status of the radioactive tritium leak at the plant.

Earlier in the day, Entergy Nuclear officials said insulation left behind by construction workers in 1978 had plugged a key drain, and was directly responsible for the radioactive tritium leak at Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, which so far has cost the company $10 million in cleanup costs.

Michael Colomb, site vice president for Vermont Yankee, told a gathering of press and community leaders Tuesday that progress was being made cleaning up the radioactive contamination at the site, although months of extracting tritium-contaminated groundwater remained.

The company released its own investigation into the radioactive leak Tuesday and said a design flaw, a lack of monitoring and a lack of corporate will were all to blame for the leak.

The plugged drain, which under normal conditions would have allowed leaking radioactive water from other pipes to drain out to a collection system and treatment, instead allowed water to pool in the tunnel and leak out to the environment through a faulty seam. A variety of radioactive isotopes, not just tritium, but strontium-90, cobalt-60, cesium-127 and others, have been found in the soil.

Colomb said the company had identified 111 “piping runs” that contained radioactive isotopes that were either underground, buried or inaccessible. He said Entergy had determined only five of those 111 pipes needed to be replaced with above-ground pipes.

Vermont legislative leaders and the Department of Health have urged Entergy to replace all underground pipes carrying radioactivity with above-ground systems, which are much easier to monitor to avoid a similar radioactive leak.

So far Entergy has removed 240 cubic feet of radioactive soil from an excavation pit surrounding an underground concrete tunnel, which carried drain lines from the advanced off-gas system, plant officials said.

Additionally, about 130,000 gallons of tritium-contaminated groundwater has been pulled out of a new well, and the company says it plans on extracting 300,000 gallons of radioactive water from the ground near the leak.

With many Entergy employees sporting what appeared to be a new “VY4VT” logo, Colomb said the company remained committed to continuing to operate another 20 years beyond 2012, when its original federal operating license expires.

The site vice president said the costs of the cleanup and continuing costs of increased monitoring are proof the company was serious about turning around public opinion and getting legislative approval for continued operation.

The Vermont Senate voted 26-4 against the plant’s license extension, casting serious doubt on the plant’s future.

But company officials said the vote came at a particularly troubled time during the tritium leak, and that it was confident it would prove to Vermonters the company and the reactor could be counted on for 20 more years.

After the session, William Irwin, radiological health chief for the Department of Health, said he wanted the company to come up with a new method of sampling the contaminated groundwater as it reached the Connecticut River.

While sampling has yet to reveal any measurable levels of tritium, Irwin said he believed the highest concentration of tritium contamination wouldn’t reach the river until later this year, probably in the winter.

So far, while the tritium has shown up in about 20 monitoring wells at the plant, it hasn’t showed up in any private drinking water wells.

Irwin said he was pleased with Entergy’s level of activity and dedication to solving the problem, but he said that hadn’t always been the case.

The past couple of years has been marked with problems, he said.

“The work of the past six months needs to be done on a routine basis,” he said. “It’s not what we had prior to this.”

© 2010 Rutland Herald

June 24, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

An Old Nuclear Problem Creeps Back

By MATTHEW L. WALD | New York Times | June 7, 2010

The American nuclear industry, primed to begin new construction projects for the first time in 30 years, is about as eager for an operating problem at an old reactor as the oil industry was for a well blowout on the eve of opening the Atlantic coast to oil drilling.

Nonetheless, a nuclear reactor where a hidden leak caused near-catastrophic corrosion in 2002 has experienced a second bout of the same problem.

In 2002, the plant, Davis-Besse, in Oak Harbor, Ohio, developed leaks in parts on the vessel head, allowing cooling water from inside the vessel, at 2,200 pounds per square inch of pressure, to leak out.

The cooling water contains boric acid, which is used to control the speed of the nuclear reaction, and the acid ate away a chunk of the steel the size of a football, leaving nothing but a thin stainless-steel liner to maintain the reactor’s integrity.

Nuclear experts characterized it as a startling near-miss. Plants around the country had experienced leaks in the vessel head, but none nearly this serious.

The plant was shut for 14 months. First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, which owns it, eventually brought in a replacement head of similar design from a reactor in Midland, Mich., that had been abandoned during construction.

The company assumed it had solved the problem. But recently the new vessel head showed the same leakage pattern. Once again, the parts prone to leaking are nozzles through which the control rods for the reactor pass. When the rods are inserted, they choke off the flow of neutrons that sustains the reaction; when they are withdrawn, the reactor starts up. But the nozzles are prone to a problem called “stress corrosion cracking,’’ leading to the leaks.

It is not clear why Davis-Besse’s problem is more serious than other plants have had, although it surfaced in 2002 that First Energy had won approval to delay inspections that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wanted. (When the problem became clear, those approvals set off a crisis of confidence for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

Another problem may be the metal used in the original nozzles — the same metal used in the nozzles on the Midland reactor. While the vessel head from Midland “didn’t have any hours on it,’’ said Todd Schneider, a spokesman for Davis-Besse, it is of an older design.

The reactor has 69 nozzles, and the utility has modified 24 of them in preparation for starting up again in a few weeks. The long-term fix is yet another vessel head, with nozzles of a sturdier alloy, to be installed in 2014.

In the interim, the company said, it will opt for a shorter production run. It had been operating with one refueling every 24 months, but when it gets going again, its run will be about 100 days shorter, because “we want to be able to look at it sooner,” Mr. Schneider said.

And the reactor will run at a very slightly lower temperature, about two or three degrees less than the usual 606.5 degrees Fahrenheit at the vessel head, to slow down any damaging chemical reaction, he added. Refueling of the reactor began on Monday.

June 8, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Strontium discovered in soil surrounding Vermont Yankee leak

By Terri Hallenbeck • Burlington Free Press • May 22, 2010

MONTPELIER — Vermont Yankee reported Friday afternoon that the radioactive isotope strontium has been located in the soil near where tritium had been discovered leaking at the Vernon nuclear power plant in January.

Strontium-90 was discovered in soil that had been excavated from the area of the leak, Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said. It was noted in an analysis the company received Monday from a soil sample taken March 17, he said. The state Health Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission were notified Thursday, he said.

Former nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Burlington characterized strontium-90 as the most harmful of the radioactive materials that have been found around the leak. If it comes into contact with humans, strontium-90 concentrates in the bone and causes leukemia, he said.

“This is the worst,” Gundersen said. “This is the most harmful, the hardest-to-detect and the most soluble.”

The existence of strontium-90 will increase the cost of eventual decommissioning of the plant, Gundersen said.

Along with tritium, Vermont Yankee has acknowledged the discovery of cobalt-690, cesium-137, manganese-54 and zinc-65.

The state Health Department noted the strontium discovery in its updates on the tritium leak Friday. The department emphasized that the strontium has been found in the soil but not in groundwater or in drinking water.

Smith said Vermont Yankee will continue to test for various radionuclides in the soil and monitoring wells and can’t say yet whether the strontium has all been discovered.

“They’re going to have a lot more digging to do to capture it,” Gundersen predicted.

Vermont Yankee revealed heightened levels of tritium in monitoring wells on the plant grounds in January based on samples taken in November. The company found sources of the leak in underground pipes in February and March and stopped the leaks. The company has since been excavating and removing contaminated soil.

May 24, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

It’s Not Just Vermont: State Lawmakers Do Not Share Congress’ Love for the Nuclear Industry

It was front-page news across America this February when the Vermont Senate voted to shut down the troubled Vermont Yankee reactor in 2012.  But what most Americans don’t know is that the nuclear industry also lost all of its seven other major state legislative pushes this year – going 0-8 and putting yet another nail in the coffin of the myth of the “nuclear renaissance” in the United States, according to an analysis by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).

Even as some in Congress would lavish tens of billions of dollars – and even unlimited – loan guarantees on the embattled nuclear power industry, state lawmakers in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia and Wisconsin said a firm “no” this year to more nuclear power.  The legislative issues ranged from attempts by nuclear industry lobbyists to overturn bans on new reactors to “construction work in progress” (CWIP) assessments to pay for new reactors to reclassifying nuclear power as a “renewable resource.”

How bad is the nuclear power industry doing in state legislatures?  In 2009, the industry went 0-5 with reactor moratorium overturn efforts in Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia.  Even after stepping up its on-the-ground efforts in 2010 with paid lobbyists and extensive public relations efforts in states like Wisconsin, the industry again came up with nothing.

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service said:

”The much-hyped nuclear ‘renaissance’ is grinding to a halt in state after state. Too many lawmakers and journalists in Washington, D.C., have been blinded by the nuclear industry’s $650 million lobbying campaign. But the state elected officials closest to the public know that the American people long ago rejected nuclear power as an electricity source and they’re continuing to vote against the nuclear industry. The public wants clean, safe, reliable and affordable electricity, not dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power, and most state officials continue to show they understand that.”

Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL, said:

“For the last three years nuclear power advocates in the Illinois legislature have tried unsuccessfully to repeal the state’s 1987 nuclear construction moratorium law.  Illinois is better off for their abject failure.  This moratorium has successfully protected the state from the threat of additional nuclear waste build-up, a job made even more necessary and pressing today than in 1987 with the cancellation of the Yucca Mt. project, the Federal Government’s only plan for permanent disposal of these deadly, long-lived wastes.  Repealing a law that successfully protects Illinois under today’s much more dire radioactive circumstances is irrational, irresponsible and dangerous.”

Daniel Endreson, program coordinator, Clean Water Action Midwest Office, Minneapolis, MN, said:

“Nuclear proponents have once again attempted to repeal the moratorium on new nuclear plants in Minnesota. This year nuclear proponents were faced with the prospect to allow the moratorium to be lifted, but with conditions which would have protected ratepayers and the environment. Instead of accepting this option, proponents instead chose to quickly abandon their attempts. Even though proponents like to claim nuclear is clean, safe and cheap energy source, they appeared unwilling to prove these claims. This should be a signal to all Minnesotans that new nuclear is the wrong direction for our state and that we should remain focused on developing actual clean, home-grown energy.”

Sandy Bahr, chapter director, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Phoenix, AZ, said:

“The last two years bills have been introduced in the Arizona Legislature to include nuclear power in the definition of renewable energy.  Not only is that incorrect, it is just plain wrong and would be a disaster for Arizona‘s growing renewable energy industry.  Solar energy industry representatives, small businesses, and even utilities told legislators and the governor this was a bad idea and a huge step backwards, which resulted in the bill being withdrawn.”

The following is an overview of the nuclear industry’s failed state legislative efforts in 2010:

• Arizona. SolarCity, Kyocera Solar, Inc. and Suntech Power Holdings joined with other solar energy providers in February to warn that if Arizona House Bill 2701 (HB 2701) was passed into law, it would have jeopardized Arizona‘s entire renewable energy industry. The failed HB 2701 proposed to replace the existing Renewable Energy Standard (RES) in Arizona with one that would allow utilities to use existing nuclear and hydroelectric power to meet the RES requirements, eliminate distributed generation requirements within the bill and eliminate any interim energy requirements between now and 2025.  According to the state’s solar industry leaders, the bill’s inclusion of non-renewables in the definition of renewable energy, new “double regulation” and other changes to the RES would have halted all new renewable energy development in the state, undercut one of Arizona‘s fastest growing industries and put thousands of existing and future jobs in jeopardy as the state’s economy recovers from the effects of the recession.
• Illinois. Another attempt to repeal the Illinois nuclear construction moratorium failed to move in the state legislature.  The Illinois House chose not to move on Rep. JoAnn Osmond‘s HB875; it was never voted on.  Attempts to advance the bill in the Senate as an amendment to another measure failed.
• Iowa. The nuclear industry sought the authority to impose a CWIP fee to finance a possible second nuclear reactor in the state.   That proposal was shot down by state lawmakers.  Instead, a watered-down measure, HB 2399, was signed into law, authorizing one of Iowa‘s utilities to collect $15 million from ratepayers over the next three years to conduct feasibility studies.
• Kentucky. Senate Bill 26 would have overturned a 1984 moratorium on the building of nuclear reactors.   The measure died in the House, which elected to keep the state’s more than quarter-century old moratorium in place.
• Minnesota. Efforts in the Minnesota Legislature to lift the state’s ban on new nuclear reactors are now dying in the waning days of the legislative session.  However, the measure that remains alive for the moment bans CWIP financing arrangements, and has been described by the nuclear industry as so restrictive that it would not actually permit new reactor construction projects in the state.
• Vermont. After allegations of mismanagement and ongoing concern about radioactive tritium leaks, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 in February to shut down the nuclear reactor in 2012, marking the first time a state legislature has voted to close an existing nuclear reactor.  Entergy is seeking to relicense the 40-year-old reactor, which faces much criticism for the tritium leaks, collapsed cooling towers and other problems.
• West Virginia. West Virginia‘s official ban on the construction of nuclear reactors remains unchanged. In February, the West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee by a lopsided voice vote killed a move to eliminate the prohibition.
• Wisconsin. When they elected to pour substantial funds into Wisconsin to prevail in the state legislature, the nuclear industry appeared confident of success.  Wisconsin legislators included a provision to gut the nuclear moratorium law in a climate bill during the 2010 legislative session, but their efforts failed when the session ended on April 22nd, without the bill coming up for a vote. Wisconsin‘s existing state law requires that any proposed nuclear power facility be proven economical for ratepayers and that federally licensed waste repository be available to safely store spent nuclear fuel.  In practice, affordable power and long-term waste disposal are two requirements that nuclear power is incapable of meeting.

ABOUT Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a 32-year old public interest organization, was founded to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues (http://www.nirs.org).

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, for NIRS, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

May 14, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

DOE’s Nuclear Loan Guarantee Bailout Program In Question Due To Negative Court Ruling in Georgia

Other U.S. Nuclear Reactor Projects In Line for Loan Guarantees Also Pose Major Risks to Taxpayers

Press Release* | May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire — The only taxpayer-backed loan guarantee bailout to be offered for new nuclear reactors – $8.3 billion for two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia – should be rescinded now that the project was dealt a setback in a decision by a Georgia judge that state officials illegally certified the project, according to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and Public Citizen.

The groups also noted that, despite the push in Congress for more controversial loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, the other two leading contenders for such bailouts – the South Texas Project at Bay City on the Gulf Coast (114 miles from San Antonio and 90 miles from Houston) and Calvert Cliffs in Maryland – are more unsettled than ever and now pose an even greater risk to U.S. taxpayers.

As such, the groups also said that Department of Energy (DOE) should refrain from offering any new loan guarantees to nuclear projects before overhauling its evaluation process.

DOE has stated that the $10 billion remaining in loan guarantee authority is only sufficient for one of the two projects and has requested another $9 billion in the appropriations supplemental to cover the second project. In its FY2011 budget request, the Obama Administration has already requested $36 billion in loan guarantee authority, a tripling of the nuclear loan guarantee program.

The groups detailed the setbacks at the Georgia project and other two federal bailout candidates as follows:

VOGTLE

Last Friday, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy won its lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court that aimed to protect Georgians from unfair utility costs in connection with the proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia. The Court found that the Georgia Public Service Commission acted illegally in violation of Georgia state law. The Commission’s approval last year during the certification process for the proposed new Vogtle reactors was put into question.

At Friday’s hearing, Judge Wendy Shoob heard SACE’s allegation that the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) erred as a matter of law by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required. Specifically, the group alleged that the PSC did not provide the required written justifications for its findings that would “afford an intelligent review” by the courts. The PSC instead relied on statements void of any reasoning. The Court ruled in favor of SACE and found that the PSC acted illegally in violation of Georgia state law by failing to make all appropriate findings and to support those findings with a concise and explicit statement of the facts. Just prior to the decision, Southern Company had yet to accept the conditional guarantee and had requested another month to decide. On Wednesday, the Court issued the final order, remanding the case back to the PSC. (Pdf)

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said: “This ruling raises further concerns over the Obama Administration’s controversial decision in February to award an $8.3 billion taxpayer-financed conditional loan guarantee for Southern Company’s proposed Vogtle project, the first to be offered one in the country. Given this decision and the economic risks to U.S. taxpayers of this project, DOE should rescind its offer of a loan guarantee. DOE needs to re-evaluate its ‘due-diligence’ procedures before offering any other loan guarantees. For example, how can a loan guarantee be offered before a reactor design is even certified as safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?”

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

The estimated cost for two NRG proposed reactors in Texas has risen from $5.8 billion in 2006 to a reported $18.2 billion at the end of 2009. As a result, the City of San Antonio pulled out of 85 percent of its investment in the project, leaving a void of as much as 33 percent of the project without investors.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) coalition, said: “The South Texas nuclear reactor is an economic disaster waiting to happen. The costs have trebled since the plant was proposed, NRG’s credit is just one notch above a junk bond rating, NRG’s partner sued them for fraud and no one wants to buy shares due to the fast-rising costs. The federal government may foolishly put taxpayer money behind the South Texas Project, but it can’t force anyone to buy the resulting overpriced power. Since Texas is deregulated, this plant will have to sell excess energy into the market. Expensive nuclear power must compete against cheaper and plentiful efficiency, wind and natural gas. As a result, the power it produces won’t be too cheap to meter — instead it will be too expensive to sell. If we give this turkey loan guarantees — taxpayers will get stuck with the bill.”

CALVERT CLIFFS

In 2007, the cost estimate for the proposed new reactor at Calvert Cliffs was $5 billion. Since then, UniStar has been reluctant to provide any public cost estimates for construction of the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor, but in August 2008 hearings before the Maryland Public Service Commission, CEO George Vanderheyden acknowledged that the company’s estimates are on the “upper end” of the $4,500 – $6,000 per kilowatt (kWh) level. For a 1600 megawatt reactor such as Calvert Cliffs-3, that would mean construction costs of about $9.6 billion. Even that high figure is likely to be low, since the Pennsylvania utility PPL has posted an estimate of $13-15 billion for precisely the same reactor design at Bell Bend in PA.

Additionally, the original drive for Calvert Cliffs preceded the recent decline in demand for power in the region. Power purchase agreements have yet to be established for Calvert Cliffs. Though “demand for power” does not need to be demonstrated by the reactor owner, demand for power in the region has dropped off due to the market downturn, obviating most or all of the need for Calvert Cliffs.

Allison Fisher, organizer for Public Citizen’s Energy Program, Public Citizen said: “Taxpayers should be outraged that they are being put on the hook for a reactor design that has been plagued with huge delays and cost overrun. The same reactor is currently under construction in Finland and France. Both projects have been plagued with delays and cost overruns. The Finnish project is three and a half years behind schedule with a 75 percent cost overrun thus far.”

*SOURCE Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, and Public Citizen

May 7, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Florida nuclear project will take longer, cost more

By Fred Hiers |Ocala.com | May 6, 2010

There is good news and bad for Progress Energy Florida customers.

The utility company is asking Florida regulators for permission to cut its customers’ nuclear recovery costs next year by 21 percent, reducing the average nuclear cost of $6.99 per month on customer monthly bills down to $5.53. The reduction is part of Progress Energy’s decision to postpone major construction on its proposed Levy County nuclear plant.

The bad news is that postponing the project will likely mean construction costs will only increase when the utility decides to build the facility.

Company spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said the company predicts the project, once slated to be on line by 2016 and cost about $17 billion, will now be operational no sooner than 2021 at a cost ranging between $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion.

The utility has about 65,000 customers in Marion County and more than 1.6 million throughout Florida.

The company’s new plan is to postpone rate hikes for the project until after its federal licensing is complete, rather than continue with construction at the scale and timetable it has been following until now.

Jacobs said several factors were considered when deciding to slow the project, including the Florida’s Public Service Commission’s recent decision to deny the utility a $500 million base rate hike request, and the agency’s recommendation to avoid any increases during the recession.

Another factor, Jacobs said, was recent credit rating agencies’ moves to downgrade the financial outlook of the utility because of the PSC’s rate decision. Florida’s economic downturn also played a role.

Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings all downgraded the utility’s ratings following the PSC’s decision not to approve rate hikes. Previously, the PSC had routinely approved most of the utility’s requests for more money.

Jacobs also said the uncertainty of the federal government’s energy plans, including carbon regulation, also made the future of how to proceed with the proposed Levy County nuclear plant unclear.

Jacobs said as the utility comes closer to when it needs to start construction of the plant, it will then decide whether to go forward with the project or scratch it.

The process of collecting money from customers for the project is allowed through Florida’s nuclear recovery cost legislation. The rule allows utilities to collect money for nuclear plant construction in advance of facility completion. The rule doesn’t place the utility under any obligation to complete the nuclear plant – or return customer money if the project fails.

The company has spent $600 million toward the project through 2009, $200 million of which came from customers, Jacobs said… Full article

May 7, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment