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...
Thanks to NNN reader Aaron for passing along this Investor's Business Daily editorial from Friday, Shovel-Ready Nukes.
Comments
A good example is Vogtle.
They want to build AP1000's. The AP1000 is already aproved. The Vogtle site already house reactors, so obviously the site is not a problem.
So what's the hold-up?
I guess this is just an example of the horribly slow and inefficient American bureaucracy visiting Europeans have come to dread.
France was struck by the energy crisis in 1973. By 1974 they had chosen how to act.
The first reactors of this program (Bugey 2-3) went online in... 1979. In 1985, eleven years after the go!-signal, 34 new reactors were online. Multiply this number by 5 to get the US equivalent.
:: ::
Yes, that's 170.
I don't think it is in anyone's interests to be seen to be advocating short circuiting the NRC approval process. While I personally think that some of the public hearings could be dispensed with, we have to live within the rules that Congress has established. If you don't like those rules, develop a case and present it to Congress and lobby for change.
Clearly there is a right level of approval oversight, that may be different for different cases.
Given this self-evident truth, it is also clearly possible for the mandated oversight of the approvals process to be either counterproductively insufficient or counterproductively overzealous.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Chernobyl-What%C2%92s-Wrong-Nuclear/dp/1439220174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233308226&sr=1-1
Cheers!
Aladar
If an applicant has submitted a COLA to the NRC for new reactor(s) at an existing site, then they have done the site work required to start the excavation and foundation work. Environmental review should hold no surprise.
According to the NRC website, there are 17 such reactors. Several are for certified designs.
BTW, Investors Business Daily seems to have been stimulated by my article that appeared that morning:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/productive_stimulation_fasttra.html
Create a national nuclear utility, much like Vattenfall or EdF.
With a centralised national programme, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, it will be possible to build a vast number of reactors really fast.
You guys already have the success story of TVA, and the reluctance of having state owned corporations seems to be dwindling really fast.
If you really insist, the company could be privatised or split up or something 20 years down the line.
/Arvid
However, the RBMKs in Russia have to be fased out in order to avoid another Chernobyl.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Chernobyl-What%C2%92s-Wrong-Nuclear/dp/1439220174/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233232676&sr=1-1
for the reasons.
The twelve reactors are: STP, Turkey Point, Harris, Summer, Vogtle, and Levy. One could quibble about Levy since the new reactors are just up the coast from Crystal River and not EXACTLY on the same site. However, the geology and site environments are pretty constant in that part of the country.
Personally, I recommend contacting the senators in those states to point this out.