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

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 America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog