Skip to main content

Summer Rising

On a crisp morning in 1937, if you asked him, he may have gone with you and his other friends to a fishing spot just over that hill. But to support his disabled father, and his mother and siblings, Virgil Clifton Summer, Jr., graduated from high school and went to work. The Parr Steam Plant had given him a job: sweeping floors and mowing grass. He was then just 16 years old.

After four years as a Navy sailor in World War 2, a college degree, professional engineering license, and a couple decades of hard work back at South Carolina Electric & Gas, he became SCANA’s Chairman, President, and CEO. In 1971, the board named the company’s first nuclear plant for him. Everyone’s heard of Summer 1, and many remember Chairman Summer the gentleman. And now comes the next generation, bearing the same proud name as the original.

In September, the South Carolina Public Service Commission granted SCE&G’s application for a 1.1 percent increase in retail electric rates to help pay for the new generating station, an early of many milestones in the company’s long-term plan to provide steady, clean energy and save its customers $4 billion on electricity bills by lowering the cost of construction, capital, depreciation, property taxes, and insurance.

Last week, SCE&G published its quarterly report of the new units’ status: pre-construction work at V. C. Summer 2 and 3 is well underway in sunny Jenkinsville, South Carolina, on schedule and budget.

We think the old man would be proud.

Comments

Anonymous said…
on schedule and budget.

Don't say that too loud. If Obama or Greenpeace hears you, we can expect them to try to fix that problem.
The Washington Post reports about the scam in the hype of global warming:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

I am completely in favor of nuclear energy. But I don't believe in ingratiation myself with the Al Gore's of the world.

Whether warming or cooling or steady state, Earth NEEDS nuclear energy. But I won't support nuclear energy if that means supporting liberalism.
not a dem said…
Ionnes, this is the most ridiculous thing you've said to date. How can an electric generating station be liberal or conservative?

-not a dem
DocForesight said…
I think Ionnes is referring to the predominantly political Left that embraces, endorses and promotes the theory of MMGW. Historically, it has been the Left that has thwarted most energy projects - oil and gas exploration, production and distribution (all while they drive and use their computers to blog) and nuclear power plants construction.

It should be agreed among the pro-nuclear group that, regardless of the GW debate, nuclear stands as The Colossus to deliver the electricity and process heat needed to bring the developing world into the 21st century and to advance the developed countries to even greater advances.
Anonymous said…
The Washington TIMES is NOT the Washington Post. To put it mildly.
Brian Mays said…
The Washington Post covered the story too (here as well). The Washington Times URL above points to an op-ed piece, not an objective news story.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...