Skip to main content

Fresno Nuclear Energy Group Announces Kickoff Plans

From ABC30.com:
Wednesday morning, the newly formed Fresno Nuclear Energy Group announced plans to explore building a community-owned nuclear plant and acknowleged that safety concerns will be the first hurdle. Hutson says, "We're not concerned with what San Francisco says, we're concerned with the citizens of Fresno."

They will launch an information campaign with a public event in February featuring Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore who wrote in the Washington Post this year, "Nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster - catastrophic climate change."

[...]

Jim Costa, (D) Fresno says, "There is no silver bullet and all sources of energy should be part of the equation to address the problem." Fresno Congressman Jim Costa believes a nuclear plant in Fresno is worth study, but is facing Califorania's ban on them despite the industry's decades of safe operation across the country." He says, "I want to sit down with the parties and look at the numbers and see if it really makes sense."
As we noted yesterday, the Mayor of Fresno is on board too.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Starvid, Sweden said…
Great for Fresno!

But those reporters seem like parodies of real reporters, they talk like their audience are children.
First, I'm glad they're taking an unconventional approach to cooling by using wastewater. There goes the water use argument.

However, I disagree with the decision to use EPRs. The EPR is not yet certified, so there is no schedule advantage over using the ACR-700 (even the ACR-1000)--and a proposal for three ACR-1000s instead of two EPRs could present a serious challenge to California's reactor ban, since they can operate on waste from San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. In that case, they could argue for a modification of the statute to allow reactors that operate on materials already in California's waste stockpile, since banning waste-eating reactors based on waste really doesn't make sense. It might also provide an economic advantage, since PG&E/SCE/SDG&E would gladly pay Fresno Nuclear Energy Group to take their waste, resulting in possibly negative (!) fuel costs. It could be an important precedent. But as it stands, it's Sundesert redux.
Anonymous said…
Sir:
I am for, absolutely for, a nuclear reactor in central California. But Fresno also needs an oil refinery up there which will work in synergy with a reactor...no power plant needed..!
How do I get a hold on John Hutson so I can speak to him to promote this idea?
Vern Cornell...energy consultant
Anonymous said…
Sir:
I failed to mention that I am working with a group that can deliver the necessary crude oil up to Fresno for a refinery there.
From foreigh sources via ULCC.
Vern Cornell
Anonymous said…
Vern, what do you mean when you say "Fresno also needs an oil refinery up there which will work in synergy with a reactor...no power plant needed..!"

I am interested in learning more
nada said…
I think it's great that public power Fresno want's to build a nuke.

It is true that the EPRs are not yet certified...but they will be and everyone knows it. Plus, given the economy of scale: 1700 MWs per unit, it will make Fresno a top player in the energy needs of the State of California.

Secondly, there is the ban. and the ban needs to be overturned. This, then, is the major hurdle.

David
leftatomics.blogspot.com

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 …

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…

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…