Skip to main content

Suspense. Tension. Bellefonte!

house near bellefonte I’m not sure if it belittles the importance of the event to call it, well, suspenseful:

Later this month [this Friday, to be exact], the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority could take up a proposal to complete the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in northeast Alabama.

TVA administrators are conducting a campaign to gain public support for the project and nuclear energy in general despite a dangerous incident at a Japanese plant this year.

TVA had already put off making this decision once:

TVA staff says the most reliable and least costly option for future growth in electricity needs is nuclear power and completing the Bellefonte plant in Hollywood, Ala., for an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion. The board’s vote on the proposal, which had been expected this past spring, was put off after a nuclear fiasco in Japan.

“Dangerous incident,” “nuclear fiasco.” We may in for a long period of creative description-making for the accident at Fukushima. I’m not crazy about either of these,but points to reporters for mixing it up a bit.

With costs rising and more regulations anticipated for TVA’s aging coal-fired plants — the historic workhorse of electricity generation — the nation’s largest public power producer stands at a crossroads as the meeting approaches.

Oddly, the story doesn’t mention why aging coal plants might be facing rising costs and more regulation. Nuclear facilities are not exactly regulation free, after all. In any event, it’s clear that writer Anne Paine is feeling the suspense, too:

None of the board members contacted by The Tennessean last week was definite on how he or she would vote on Bellefonte.

Three members — [Barbara] Haskew; Mike Duncan of Inez, Ky.; and William Sansom of Knoxville — did not return telephone calls for comment. Those reached talked about keeping rates as low as possible for the9 million people served in parts of seven states through TVA’s distributors.

That actually speaks well to approving Bellefonte, but that’s what you do when you can’t know: you read teas leaves – parsing what people say for a hint.

There has been, as you might expect, some criticism from an environmental coalition called the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). Some groups put up good contentions that ought to be answered carefully, but SACE just cooked up a stew of issues that aren’t really issues.

SACE released a report, saying TVA should not go forward at Bellefonte, providing what they claimed seven major factors that say TVA's attempt is extremely costly and and dangerous.

Here’s a bit from SACE’s press release:

Efforts by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to resume construction at the long-shuttered, nearly forty-year-old Bellefonte nuclear reactor Unit 1 in Jackson County, Alabama, are unlikely to be successful due to seven major problems, including water damage to the reactor site foundation, compromised radiation containment in the unfinished reactor, and a lack of records about what exactly went on when the critical systems in the unfinished plant were cannibalized while the project lay dormant.

Which makes it sound as though TVA intends to walk into the plant as-is and flip a switch.

[TVA President and CEO Tom] Kilgore said a completed Unit 1 at Bellefonte would essentially be a new unit, using the latest equipment and technology to meet the latest safety standards and regulations.

He also talks about the “water damage” – there isn’t any. Of course, if SACE cannot be sure of Bellefonte – as it presumably cannot – that provides a lot of license to promote what must be true or, to put it more specifically, what SACE feels must be true. And that’s being generous.

Unless the TVA board hangs onto its votes for awhile without revealing them – the vote itself is secret – we should know if TVA will be going ahead with Bellefonte this Friday.

Oh, the suspense.

---

If Bellefonte is approved, the plan currently is to bring it online in 2018, which means it will have taken 44 years from conception to completion. The project was officially suspended in 1988 due to falling energy costs, with reactor 1 about 88 percent complete. Reviving the project has percolated for awhile now and in 2008, TVA asked the NRC to reinstate the construction permits, which has happened. The recession depressed (recessed?) the demand for more electricity, so the original 4-reactor project is now one – well, one for now. Here are some up-to-date TVA talking points about Bellefonte.

On the road to Bellefonte – you didn’t really want another shot of a plant, did you? You can see a cooling tower over the trees on the left. It’ll be nice if they actually get to cool something.

Comments

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…