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

Anonymous 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
D. Walters 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

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...

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...

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...