Skip to main content

New Hampshire Takes Look at Second Reactor at Seabrook

From the AP:
Lawmakers worried about the state's energy needs are raising the possibility of rebuilding Seabrook Station's second nuclear reactor - an idea that doesn't sit well with some environmentalists.

"We need to increase power generation in the state of New Hampshire," Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg said Friday. "People all over the country are starting to realize we dropped the ball when we allowed a vocal minority to stop production of nuclear power."

Clegg said he and other members of leadership want to explore rebuilding the reactor though they have yet to approach officials at Seabrook Station.

Power companies around the state are raising their rates or proposing to raise them, he noted.

"If we had built the second reactor, New England wouldn't be in the problem it's in now," Clegg said. "We're going to lose businesses because they can't afford the increases."
NH Insider likes the idea.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is classic.

What's the Santayana quote?
Something like those who can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Seabrook 1 & 2 promised at $900,000,000 wound up with
4 owner utilities going bankrupt to build Unit 1 at a trifle $6.5 billion with an additional $900 million in sunk costs in the cancelled 2nd unit. As you all know, this was not an isolated story.

Its that kind of investment risk associated with those behemouth unexpected costs notoriously associated with nuclear power that is central to the recent 01/09/2006 Standard & Poor's report "Credit Aspects of North American and European Nuclear Power" and this quote---
"Although there has been no new construction in the U.S. since the
mid-1980s, at least a resurgence of interest in potential new
construction has occurred. Mainly, this support comes from generation
owners and supportive legislation from the Federal government. Still, this support may not be enough to mitigate the risks associated with operating issues and high capital costs that could hinder credit quality."

Any wonder that the only interest is coming from this all but moribund industry and those politicians whose pockets are lined by the Abramhoff's of Capitol Hill.

Even the Energy Bill is not going to be enough to revive this white elephant.

Investors have a long memory.

Paul, NIRS
Eric McErlain said…
Always looking backward, Paul. Always looking backward.

No mention of the new licensing process that eliminates many of the bottlenecks that caused those cost overruns in the first place. No mention of 25 years of safe and reliable operations. And no mention of skyrocketing natural gas prices that are raising home heating and electric rates all over New England.

But if you bothered looking over the horizon, this is what you'd see, courtesy of Merrill Lynch:

Utilities with sizable holdings of emission-free nuclear power plants are well-positioned for gains through the end of the decade as a result of more stringent air quality regulations that will affect other forms of electricity generation.

And that doesn't even begin to tackle the issue of greenhouse gas controls, which are looking more likely every day.
Anonymous said…
Hey, tell Standard & Poors they're looking backwards.

Ever think you might have already burned your bridge?

Looking back to that January 9, 2006 S&P report,[Which I note you have not posted] they project that even a $13 billion taxpayer giveaway in to nukes is not enough to jump start the heartbeat of new reactors.

Clear!

Just more money after bad...

I see no logic to gas company gouging consumers being an endorsement for a new round of atomic gouging at Seabrook 2.

Paul, NIRS

Popular posts from this blog

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

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