Skip to main content

Florida Commission Approves Two New Reactors

By
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.
Labels:

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.
March 19, 2008 at 9:58 AM
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).
March 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM
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!
March 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
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.
March 20, 2008 at 6:36 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more