Exelon Selects ESBWR for Texas

Details from World Nuclear News.

For more from GE Nuclear, click here.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Definitely good news for GEH. I wonder if the COL will be for one or two reactors. They previously told the NRC two reactors (either AP1000 or ESBWR) in their response to NRC RIS 2007-08 before the technology was selected. No one else has committed to 2 ESBWR reactors on one site for the COL application. I am skeptical about their commitment to new construction with cautions being uttered about needing spent fuel problems solved. That will not happen for decades at least. I say build now and worry about the waste later.

November 15, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Anonymous said…

I think the comments about the need to solve spent fuel storage were specific to new plants in Illinois which has a state law prohibiting new construction until long term fuel storage is resolved.

November 15, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Anonymous said…

This quote is from the Exelon press release for this announcement. "Among the various conditions that must be resolved to Exelon’s satisfaction before any formal decision to build is made is a solution to used fuel disposal and community acceptance of a new nuclear plant, the company has said." See the 11/12/07 release on the Exelon website for the full story. This means a used fuel solution for Texas if you ask me.

November 19, 2007 at 2:28 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