AP: NRG to Submit First New Nuke Application

[AlecBGreen]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON — Power producer NRG Energy Inc. will submit the first application for a new nuclear reactor in the U.S. in nearly 30 years, the company's chief executive said Monday.

Nuclear regulators expect Tuesday morning to receive NRG's application for two new units at its facility in Bay City,Texas, about 90 miles southwest of Houston. It will be the first complete construction and operating license submission the government has processed since before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.

...

Utilities see in nuclear plants an opportunity to affordably meet demand for electricity, which the Energy Information Administration is forecasting will grow by 42 percent by 2030. High natural gas prices and the prospect of taxes or constraints on greenhouse gases are making gas- or coal-fired plants less attractive.

...

"Nuclear is expensive to build, but (post-construction) is one of the cheapest sources of power generation that's out there," Howald said. "Assuming they get it up and running, it's going to be a very, very attractive plant."

The average cost of nuclear-produced electricity was 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2006, compared with 2.37 cents for coal-fired plants and 6.75 cents for natural gas plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

Read more: www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070924/new-nukes-nrg

---

Question - Have we been adding reactors to existing plants throughout the last 30 years, or is this the first nuclear plant PERIOD to be built in that time frame?

Crossposted in Environment/Energy forum (poke your head in there from time to time. We need fresh faces :))

[sabbat hunter]

1. I believe that

plants have opened in the last 30 years, but this is the first request to start to build a new one in almost 30 years.

There were plants already in construction when the 3 mile island accident occured, some were stopped, others continued I believe.

If we can get the costs to build a nuclear power plant down, it will be a very good thing as the costs to produce electricity from one is much much cheaper.

[PSPS]

2. What a crock

When nuke plants were initially promoted forty years ago, it was with the promise that their electricity would be "too cheap to meter." They all turned out to be fiascos -- from TMI to Trojan to WPPSS -- just a giant drain on the consumer (and a great way for the billionaire CEO to suck at the public teat.) It was "discovered" that the cost to save a kilowatt was far less than the cost to generate a new one.

[NickB79]

13. So what other electrical sources do you demand be too cheap to meter?

Do you pay anything for electricity from coal? From natural gas? From hydroelectricity? From wind turbines? Why does nuclear have to be "too cheap to meter" when it's ok to pay 10-15 cents/kWh for electricity from all other sources?

"It was "discovered" that the cost to save a kilowatt was far less than the cost to generate a new one."

Where exactly was this discovered, because that's news to me.

[bananas]

3. Those prices are propaganda

They ignore construction, financing, waste disposal, and decommissioning costs.

[TheWraith]

5. Actually, no, they don't.

All costs factored in, nuclear is still by far one of the cheapest forms of electrical power.

[Dems Will Win]

6. Let me straighten this out

The nuclear industry gets a number of subsidies or outright freebies from the government that is not included in the price quoted by the NEI:

Insurance for truly catastrophic disasters - the federal Price Anderson Act covers that. There is several trillion dollars worth of real estate within range of Indian Point. Put that in your kwh cost and smoke it.

Decommissioning costs are said to be not known and not included in the NEI quote. The industry assumes the government would pick up the cost somehow.

Fuel processing is subsidized and lumped in with the US nuclear weapon program to mask the true cost.
High grade uranium ore is soaring and would run out fairly quick if there were thousands of new plants. Mining and processing low grade ore would then create as many carbon emissions per kwh as a natural gas plant according to one study, so why have a possible catastrophe like TMI in the neighborhood?

The numbers don't add up and you can't trust the industry association for the truth.

There's a lot of other things the government does to help the industry, but I have to go back to my energy job.

[TheWraith]

8. Bollocks.

"Insurance for truly catastrophic disasters - the federal Price Anderson Act covers that."

No, it covers liability over the level of ten BILLION dollars. More to the point, it's never been needed.

"There is several trillion dollars worth of real estate within range of Indian Point."

I think you exaggerate. New York City is well outside the range of even a catastrophic Chernobyl-type accident.

"Decommissioning costs are said to be not known and not included in the NEI quote. The industry assumes the government would pick up the cost somehow."

Nonsense. Decommissioning costs are listed from the minute the reactor begins operation, and the company owning it is legally required to maintain a pile of liquid cash in the exact amount of the decommissioning price in a holding account. The government has nothing to do with it.

"Fuel processing is subsidized and lumped in with the US nuclear weapon program to mask the true cost."

Nope. Uranium for power plants is enriched entirely by a civilian company. In fact, it's quite the opposite--nuclear weapons are being dismantled and converted into reactor fuel.

"High grade uranium ore is soaring and would run out fairly quick if there were thousands of new plants."

No, it wouldn't. Recoverable uranium reserves via mining are measured in many decades. Currently known CHEAP reserves are about 85 years at current consumption, or about 15 years of all human electrical needs. If we're willing to pay 10x more for uranium--taking the price from 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour to 1 cent per kilowatt hour--then there's about 300 times as much uranium that's feasible to recover. And 1 cent per kilowatt hour would still make fuel only about 15-25% of the actual cost of nuclear power.

"Mining and processing low grade ore would then create as many carbon emissions per kwh as a natural gas plant according to one study,"

As opposed to all logic, and all other studies. One study, I suspect, that was carried out either by the coal industry or one of their fronts in the anti-nuclear crowd.

"so why have a possible catastrophe like TMI in the neighborhood?"

Oh please. Strawman much?

"The numbers don't add up and you can't trust the industry association for the truth."

As opposed to buying the scare tactics sponsored by big coal?

[bananas]

12. Then they don't need billions of dollars in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, do they?

"According to a July 9 report by Bloomberg.com, last March representatives of five major banks — Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Leman Brothers and Morgan Stanley — informed Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman that they wouldn't loan money for new nukes unless the feds bumped up loan guarantees from 72 percent to 80 percent."
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=0493bbc8-063a-4390-96ee-5b70480d31fc

[Socal31]

4. Lets just say...

this is funny. I cant say anymore.

[Megahurtz]

7. Yup. n/t

[jpak]

9. More white lies from the Nuclear Energy Institute

The *fuel* costs of nuclear power are less than coal and gas, but the *capital* costs of nuclear power plants are several times higher than coal and gas plants.

But when the fuel, O&M, labor, security, and capital costs are accounted for, nuclear electricity is far more expensive than coal, oil or gas.

There's a reason no new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1973.

And the only reason(s) why this plant makes any economic sense are the massive subsidies ($2 billion+ per reactor) given to the nuclear industry by the 2005 GOP Energy Bill...

[hedgehog]

10. Just curious, but how likely is Bay city to be flooded by a hurricane?

I mean, weren't there any sites on an active fault they could have picked instead?

[Jersey Ginny]

11. We've got to pick our poison

I'm getting solar panels in a few weeks. I'm also getting a fireplace insert. I've got compact florescents all over the house, blah blah.
I support government led mandates and incentives to make this country energy efficient. However, solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy can't do it all. That is simply a fact. If not nuclear then what? Another coal plant? Global warming is the issue of our lives and nuclear power has an important role to play.

[MadHound]

14. The thing is, wind and solar can indeed do it all

However a wind/solar powered energy grid would be more decentralized than what we have now. But anyway, a 1991 DOE report on harvestable wind energy has found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in N. Dakota, Kansas and Texas to fulfill all of our electrical needs, including the growth factor, through the year 2030. That's not to state that we plaster turbines all over those states, that just goes to show how much wind energy this country has. We have been described as the Saudi Arabia of wind, time we used it.

Thin film photovoltaics are now making it possible to put solar roof tiles on a house at a much cheaper price, and they provide much greater efficiency. Something that can be done with virtually every new building.

There is no need for nuclear, and given that the two big problems with nukes, human error and waste, haven't and cannot be solved, they shouldn't be used. To do so would be utter foolishness.