Progress Energy To Investigate New Nuclear Build

Progress Energy said Monday it plans to apply for a license to build a new nuclear plant, placing North Carolina in the forefront of the nation's nuclear revival.

Raleigh-based Progress Energy said it notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it expects to pick a site for a new reactor this year and select an advanced reactor technology to put there. If the NRC approves the license and Progress Energy decides to build the reactor, construction could begin as soon as five years from now and the reactor could be operating as early as 2010, Progress Energy officials said.

Monday's announcement gives North Carolina two utilities — the other being Duke Power in Charlotte — vying to be the nation's first to commission the first new nuclear reactor in more than a quarter century. The state's two major utilities serve a combined 3.5 million customers in the Carolinas.

Comments

Kevin McCoy said…

The New and Observer misprinted the date for commercial operation. Progress Energy's press release (at http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=12443) gives the date as "around 2015."

August 30, 2005 at 12:31 PM

Anonymous said…

Progress Energy has got the money for a nuclear Plant. Where did they get that money from? By providing poor service and charging innocent customers who are barley able to live day by day a hefty deposit......GREEDY SUCKERS to your doom. I don't have progress energy but i work with progress energy (connections)and this is how i know. PRAY FOR A MELT DOWN TO SHUT THEM DOWN.

February 16, 2006 at 9:19 PM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog