Skip to main content

Florida Commission Approves Two New Reactors

The Miami Herald reported on the Florida Public Service Commission's decision to approve two additional reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point site. FPL already operates two reactors at Turkey Point in south Florida.

"Trends indicate there will be a substantial need for more power in FPL's service territory, and these new nuclear units can help meet that need," PSC Chairman Matthew M. Carter II said in a statement. "The nuclear units will provide a clean, noncarbon-emitting source of base-load power to meet Florida's growing energy needs."
FPL said in a statement today that the Florida commission's decision will help provide the state with clean, safe and reliable electricity.
"Additional nuclear generation will help us achieve Gov. Crist’s goal of reducing the carbon emissions that scientists have determined contribute to climate change, and will protect customers from supply disruptions and unpredictable prices that can result from being too dependent on a single fuel source," said Armando Olivera, president of FPL.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Note in the article by the Sun Sentinel

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-flzfpl0319sbmar19,0,6071956.story

that the projected new reactor costs will be $12 billion to $24 billion.
David Bradish said…
Note the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 8 from Florida's PSC (pdf):

"Such a break-even analysis shows the
highest capital costs for which nuclear generation would still be cost-effective."

If you want to read more on the cost-effectiveness of the two units check out page 11 of FPL's Petition (pdf).
GRLCowan said…
David Bradish, your link labelled "Florida's PSC" links in fact to the comment thread that contains it.

PDFs take several minutes to get. Might excerpts from the two you had in mind, and an explanation of how they are relevant to the $12-to-$24-billion thing, not make a good posting of its own?

Let the baby light matches in the fuel room!
David Bradish said…
grlcowan,

Good catch. Here's the link I meant to post (pdf).

You're right, FPL's Petition and cost estimates should be a posting of its own. I'm actually working on a series of posts discussing new nuclear plant costs reported by FPL's and Progress's recent Petitions as well as a few other sources. I hope to have the first post by the beginning of next week.

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 …

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…