Skip to main content

Duke Power Plans COL; New Nuclear Plant Possible by 2015

Earlier this week, Duke Power Chief Nuclear Officer Brew Barron made an important announcement (registration required) for the future of the commercial nuclear industry at the Platts Nuclear Energy Conference in Washington, D.C.:

Duke Power is in the initial stages of planning the preparation of a combined construction and operating license, or COL, application for a new nuclear generating facility, to be sited within the Duke Power service territory . . .

Most significantly, in order to meet our generation planning model time line, we are focusing our efforts on preparing a COL application that would include the site approval, rather than first making an early site permit application.


This is a really big deal. I was in the room for the announcement, and the attendees seemed to be experiencing a mixture of intense joy and disbelief.

A conversation between two executives at one reactor manufacturer was pretty typical:

"Would you believe somebody making an announcement like that a year ago?" said one.

"A year ago, I wouldn't have believed it six months ago," the other replied.

According to Barron, the new plant would be scheduled to come online somewhere in the middle of the next decade, around 2015. He added that Duke is also in the early stages of identifying a reactor design, and is examining advanced light water reactors from General Electric, Westinghouse and Areva.

Barron said that the decision to pursue the COL was spurred by the need to add cost-effective baseload generation that is both stable and environmentally sound—two of the calling cards of new nuclear capacity:

Increasing load demand, in the face of high gas price volatility and environmental concerns, favors a strategy that includes new nuclear generation as an option, going forward . . . In the end, our analysis shows new nuclear generation is the best long-term option to balance the needs of the Duke Power customer, the environment, and, with the right commercial arrangements, the Duke Energy shareholder . . .

So here we are today … with Duke Power planning the preparation of a COL application. It is not a commitment to build; it is a commitment to maintain new nuclear capacity as a meaningful option for our customers.


Just another indication of how things are looking very different in the nuclear energy business these days.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…