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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …