%5B4%5D.jpg "David-Crane---NRG-(color)")
This last bit strikes us as original if perhaps a touch too definite – after all, he’s right that solar panels and turbines work best in certain parts of the country, but nuclear energy and electric cars aren’t bound by geography. Here are his bullet points:
- The West gets the sun.
- The Midwest gets the wind.
- The South gets nuclear.
- The Northeast gets the electric car.
- Pursue "clean coal" as a national priority.
This method gets a lot of good information on the page in an organized way – we have to conclude Crane really likes organization – his sock drawer must be a marvel - so we’ll take it. Here’s his paragraph on nuclear:
Democratic policymakers have focused like lasers on wind, solar and efficiency. They need to recognize that the South, still one of the nation's most economically dynamic growth areas, lacks suitable wind and solar resources. The geology of much of the Southeast is not well-suited to sequestering the carbon emissions that must be captured by truly "clean coal." On the other hand, the populace of the South (and that includes Texas) is generally comfortable with nuclear power, and its incumbent utilities are deeply experienced in nuclear operations. Nuclear energy should be the "renewable of the South."
He knows whereof he speaks, so okay. These are quick hits for discussion purposes, not a fully fleshed out plan. Crane has a straightforward approach and inclusive view of energy. And for a daily newspaper, it keeps its explanations simple but not insultingly reductive. Good piece.
Himself.
Comments
Lasalle Station 1 & 2, to give just one example, operate at 100% full power for hundreds of days in a row, never mind the weather. I don't think Chicago needs to be fed by wind turbines hundreds of miles away.
Bottom line for me: solar and wind will remain local/distributed sources of power due to their inherent diffuse nature. "Boutique" power for those who can afford it.
The plant - Zion - needs some new steam generators and a renewed license, but it should be a lot cheaper than building a new plant from scratch. It is also well positioned to sell 2200 MW of electrical power into a lucrative market.
If Exelon does not want to refurbish it, perhaps they can be "convinced" by local and state governments to sell the plant to someone willing to make the investment and compete in the market place.
Zion has been permanently shut down for more than 10 years. It's in SAFSTOR. It has a posession-only license for the spent fuel, period. It can't be "refurbished," it would have to go through the entire operating license process from the beginning.
Please do just a little research next time.
Browns Ferry was shut down for longer than 10 years , and successfully restarted in 06. Your objections to reopening Zion NPP are merely bureaucratic in nature; there is no real engineering reason that it could not be restarted, making a large and rapid contribution to reducing coal use.
Please re-read my 7:44 --
Zion has no operating license, period -- that's not a bureaucratic issue, that's a legal bar that's pretty tough to clear. Browns Ferry 1 retained its license and TVA continued to maintain it while the other two units ran, so your comparison is invalid.
Got one of those?
As I understand it, Watts Bar II is an example that has some analogies to Zion in that TVA gave up its construction license and sold off some of the installed equipment for scratch and is now in the process of reactivating it.
I will grant that restoring Zion to a fully licensed condition would be a trail blazing event, but at least twice in the past ten years, Exelon itself has seriously considered that option and determined that it was "not cost effective."
There is certainly a possibility that Exelon's analysis of Zion's refurbishment/relicensing business case was correct for any owner. There is also a distinct possibility that "not cost effective" was only true for a company that owns a large portion of the existing generation in the area and likes to have the electricity price set by burning natural gas whenever possible. Adding 2200 MW of low marginal cost nuclear electrical generation to the area would reduce the number of hours per year when that condition holds true.
The below quote is worth thinking about - it comes from an IAEA publication titled "Consideration of early closure or continued operation of a nuclear power plant."
Similarly, if a decision to close and decommission a plant were taken based on an inaccurate assessment of poor steam generator condition or inaccurate assessment of the nature of work required to assure fitness for continued service, then a major financial penalty may be incurred to the owners and other stakeholders as a plant is removed from service unnecessarily. Such situation has occurred in the early shutdown of Zion NPP in USA during the mid-1990s. Steam generators replacement costs have coupled with a period of low demand growth, existing excess generating capacity and low incoming revenues. Under such conditions it was decided that the replacement option was not a viable one and a decision made to shut the plant down. By the mid 2000s demand and revenue conditions changed and the average cost of electricity markedly increased. It is not clear at this point if the early
decision can be reversed given the cost and difficulty of re-licensing a shut down plant.
Feel free to write your own definitions, but obtaining an operating license where none exists does not equal an "arbitrary and routine" procedure.
As for engineering issues, how about having to essentially rewrite the entire safety analysis to meet all the updates regulations? No grandfathering of the prior licensing basis is possible in this scenario.
All I'm asking is that people be just a little realistic when they imagine what might be.
-- JJ
-bin/article.pl%3Farticle_id%3D28921+%22michael+bond%22+%22commonwealth+edis
on%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us ), but concluded then that it was not "cost effective" for it to do so at that time. No further explanation from them at the time. Note Rod Adamas comment that if Exelon injected 2200 megs of new capacity into their market that likely would drive down the price of power and capacity for Exelon's other nuclear generating facilities in the area (because market price for power is based on last and highest meg bid to meet demand -- which is very high if natural gas-fired but low if nuke or coal-fired). So Exelon has had a high incentive to withhold this cheap power from the market to keep prices for its other generation very high -- witness the massive profits Exelon has made on sale from existing nukes and the incredibly high price of power and capacity in the PJM market (to which Exelon is connected) over the past several years. One approach worth objectively evaluating: restart Zion for a one-time $2 billion, thereby increase electricity capacity and supply in market to displace high priced gas-fired electric supply , thereby reduces market prices for electricity and gas in area, and overall savings to customers could be billions of dollars. And by the way the 2200 megs would be carbon free, at a tenth of the cost overall of solar and wind ventures and with 100 times greater reliability. So, an objective unbiased assessment should be done by a third party (perhaps government), Exelon should be asked to explain why they have not restarted the plant and investigated regarding whether they are intentionally withholding capacity -- from a plant the people of Illinois have already paid for out of prior rates) to keep prices high for their other generating units and for consumers.
People can speculate about the cost to reatart Zion, but Exelon itself puts it at $2 billion or less. Compared to a new plant at say $10 billion this would be some of the cheapest power in the country, and all carbon free. Seems Exelon has some explainig to do to Illinois consumers, who already paid for this plant in prior rates.