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.
Ioannes said…
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

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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…