Jump to content

Nuclear renaissance in the United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎History: expand
Line 21: Line 21:
Generation III reactors are safer than older reactors like the GE MAC 1 at Fukushima, Vermont Yankee and other plants around the world. But after a decade in which the federal government policy promoted this new version of nuclear power, only one Generation III+ reactor project has been approved in the United States. Work on it has just begun in Georgia, and already "there are conflicts between the utility, Southern Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".<ref name=parenti/> Moreover, this project is going forward only because it is in one of the few regions of the United States (the Southeast) where electricity markets were not deregulated. That means "the utility, operating on cost-plus basis, can pass on to rate-payers all its expense over-runs".<ref name=parenti>{{cite web |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/159997/nuclear-dead-end-its-economics-stupid |title=Nuclear Dead End: It's the Economics, Stupid |author=Christian Parenti |date=April 18, 2011 |work=The Nation }}</ref>
Generation III reactors are safer than older reactors like the GE MAC 1 at Fukushima, Vermont Yankee and other plants around the world. But after a decade in which the federal government policy promoted this new version of nuclear power, only one Generation III+ reactor project has been approved in the United States. Work on it has just begun in Georgia, and already "there are conflicts between the utility, Southern Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".<ref name=parenti/> Moreover, this project is going forward only because it is in one of the few regions of the United States (the Southeast) where electricity markets were not deregulated. That means "the utility, operating on cost-plus basis, can pass on to rate-payers all its expense over-runs".<ref name=parenti>{{cite web |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/159997/nuclear-dead-end-its-economics-stupid |title=Nuclear Dead End: It's the Economics, Stupid |author=Christian Parenti |date=April 18, 2011 |work=The Nation }}</ref>


Following the March 2011 [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents]], [[NRG Energy]] has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas. Analysts attributed the abandonment of the [[South Texas Nuclear Generating Station]] project to the financial situation of the plant-partner TEPCO, the inability raise other construction financing, the current low cost of electricity in Texas, and expected additional permitting delays.<ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20110419-nrg-ends-project-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors.ece NRG ends project to build new nuclear reactors]</ref>
Following the March 2011 [[Fukushima I nuclear accidents]], [[NRG Energy]] has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas. Analysts attributed the abandonment of the [[South Texas Nuclear Generating Station]] project to the financial situation of the plant-partner TEPCO, the inability raise other construction financing, the current low cost of electricity in Texas, and expected additional permitting delays.<ref>[http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20110419-nrg-ends-project-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors.ece NRG ends project to build new nuclear reactors]</ref> NRG has written off its investment of $331 million in the project.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/business/energy-environment/20nuke.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=NRG&st=cse# |title=NRG Abandons Project for 2 Reactors in Texas |author=Matthew L. Wald |date=April 19, 2011 |work=New York Times }}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 00:55, 22 April 2011

As of March 2010, U.S. regulators were expecting applications to build 26 new nuclear power reactors.[1] As of July 2010, fourteen of the new applications are for Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor which has been criticized on safety grounds;[2][3] the NRC anticipates completing the overall design certification review for the AP1000 around September 2011.[3]

Many license applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for proposed new reactors have been suspended or cancelled.[4][5] The number of reactors with any serious prospect of being built as of the end of 2010 is about a dozen.[6][7]

History

Proposed plans to add a new reactor to the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station have brought public protest. On August 7, 2008 six activists from the Peoples Alliance for Clean Energy were arrested at the North Anna Information Center for trespassing.[8]

In April 2009, Ameren Missouri canceled plans to build a second reactor at its mid-Missouri nuclear power plant. A key stumbling block was a law barring utilities from charging customers the costs of a new power plant before it starts producing electricity. The new nuclear plant would have cost at least $6 billion.[9][10]

In August 2009, the Tennessee Valley Authority, faced with "falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee", trimmed plans for the potential four-unit Bellefonte nuclear plant to one reactor.[11]

In March 2010, Exelon withdrew its application for a construction and operating license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas, citing lower electricity demand projections. The decision left the country’s largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is a nuclear renaissance. In August 2010, Exelon bought John Deere Renewables, and is moving into wind power.[12]

As of September 2010, ground has been broken the Vogtle project and one other reactor in South Carolina. The prospects of a proposed project in Texas, South Texas 3 & 4, have been dimmed by a falling out among the partners. Two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida and one in Missouri have all been "moved to the back burner, mostly because of uncertain economics".[13]

On October 8, 2010, Constellation Energy Vice President and COO Michael J. Wallace informed the US Department of Energy that it was abandoning its partnership with Electricite de France (EDF) to build the Calvert Cliffs #3 nuclear plant due primarily to the high cost and "burdensome conditions" that the loan guarantee conditions which the United States government would place on the project. Wallace, in his letter, stated that any next steps in the further pursuit of the loan guarantee and the overall project were "for EDF to determine".[14]

Generation III reactors are safer than older reactors like the GE MAC 1 at Fukushima, Vermont Yankee and other plants around the world. But after a decade in which the federal government policy promoted this new version of nuclear power, only one Generation III+ reactor project has been approved in the United States. Work on it has just begun in Georgia, and already "there are conflicts between the utility, Southern Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".[15] Moreover, this project is going forward only because it is in one of the few regions of the United States (the Southeast) where electricity markets were not deregulated. That means "the utility, operating on cost-plus basis, can pass on to rate-payers all its expense over-runs".[15]

Following the March 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, NRG Energy has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas. Analysts attributed the abandonment of the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station project to the financial situation of the plant-partner TEPCO, the inability raise other construction financing, the current low cost of electricity in Texas, and expected additional permitting delays.[16] NRG has written off its investment of $331 million in the project.[17]

See also

References

  1. ^ New Reactors (USNRC lists)
  2. ^ AP1000 containment insufficient for DBA, engineer claims Nuclear Engineering International, 29 April 2010.
  3. ^ a b Robynne Boyd. Safety Concerns Have Delayed Approval of First U.S. Nuclear Reactor in Decades Scientific American, July 29, 2010.
  4. ^ Eileen O'Grady. Entergy says nuclear remains costly Reuters, May 25, 2010.
  5. ^ Terry Ganey. AmerenUE pulls plug on project Columbia Daily Tribune, April 23, 2009.
  6. ^ Matthew L. Wald (December 7, 2010). Nuclear ‘Renaissance’ Is Short on Largess The New York Times.
  7. ^ Nuclear power in America: Constellation's cancellation, (October 16, 2010), The Economist, p. 61.
  8. ^ "6 arrested in protest at North Anna site". Daily Progress. August 7, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Nuke plant is, well, nuked. Not gonna happen
  10. ^ Terry Ganey. AmerenUE pulls plug on project Columbia Daily Tribune, April 23, 2009.
  11. ^ TVA plan for Ala. nuclear plant drops to 1 reactor
  12. ^ Matthew L. Wald. A Nuclear Giant Moves Into Wind The New York Times, August 31, 2010.
  13. ^ Matthew L. Wald. Aid Sought for Nuclear Plants Green, September 23, 2010.
  14. ^ Letter from Michael J. Wallace, Constellation Energy, to US Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Dan Poneman, October 8, 2010. [1].
  15. ^ a b Christian Parenti (April 18, 2011). "Nuclear Dead End: It's the Economics, Stupid". The Nation.
  16. ^ NRG ends project to build new nuclear reactors
  17. ^ Matthew L. Wald (April 19, 2011). "NRG Abandons Project for 2 Reactors in Texas". New York Times.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States&oldid=425258770"