NEI Nuclear Notes

This comment makes sense only if Crystal River’s closing can be seen to have wider application: Despite increasing demand for carbon-free power generation, the future of nuclear plants is clouded by the abundance of domestic natural gas, which has led many utilities to embrace that fuel for power generators. That has eased the pressure on operators to keep nuclear plants open, especially if there are questions about their safety. “There is more of a feeling that because you have very low natural gas prices, there is another alternative out there,” Mr. Dean said. “This has eased the pressure on operators to keep nuclear plants open.” Pressure? If there are questions about their safety? Mr. Dean is John Dean, president of JD Energy , an energy and environmental forecasting firm based in Frederick, Md. In this instance, the main reason Mr. Dean can say this is because Duke’s plan to close Crystal River provides a basis for saying it. As we explained a couple of days ago, i...

Not getting respect : “We also have a good chance in Vietnam,” the minister added. “The United States, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and Korea can build nuclear power plants, but the U.S. lags behind in technology as it hasn’t built one for 20 to 30 years. This is a good time for us to speed up (atomic power plant construction).” Ouch! That stung a little. This is South Korea’s Knowledge Economy Minister Hong Suk-woo. He’s not exactly right – falling behind in construction and in technological advance are two different things and the U.S. has not fallen behind – at all – in technology. But Hong is selling Korean capacity in both, so fine. Still – ouch! --- Land of corn and plenty : Dueling videos debuted Wednesday on possible nuclear power expansion in Iowa. A group that opposes nuclear power launched a television ad on the eve of today’s Senate committee hearing on a proposed compromise that advocates hope will push the bill ahead. And minutes later, MidAme...

Here’s the headline in the Sioux City (IA) Journal. I’m not sure what it means, though it seems to mean something . Nuclear power, red-light camera bills could be on Iowa legislative agenda I mean that nuclear power is given parity with the camera bill. Here’s what that’s about: A bill likely to come before the House Transportation Committee Feb. 2 could be a financial risk to lead-footed drivers. That's HF 2048 sponsored by Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, to ban red-light and speed cameras in Iowa. It calls for all existing cameras to be removed by July 1. So far the debate has pitted law enforcement and city officials against personal liberty interests. "How much of a police state do we want to have?" Rogers asked at a hearing where his bill won subcommittee backing. What pops into my head is: how many traffic lights are there in Iowa? But really, we came for the lights and stayed for the energy: Example One [of controversial legislation ...

In the Congressional hearing report a few posts down, several House members turned the heat up on four NRC commissioners (including Chairman Gregory Jaczko) over the commission’s decision – or action, as it hasn’t technically made a decision yet - to not review the license for the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository. So a report from the Government Accounting Office acts only to pour both salt and lemon on the wound: The U.S. government could face fines of $75,000 a day if it fails to find a way to store or handle stockpiles of defense-related nuclear waste by 2035, according to the Government Accountability Office. Because Yucca Mountain was meant to harbor this material, too.  In government terms, $75,000 may sound paltry. It adds up: If the Energy Department does not find a way to remove the waste by then, it could face "significant penalties," GAO says: $60,000 a day for the remains in Idaho and $15,000 a day for remains in Colorado - or $27.4 mill...

"This is a huge step for Iowa, and it is a huge step if we believe we want to grow the great state of Iowa," said Rep. Chuck Soderberg, R-Le Mars, chairman of the House's commerce committee and floor manager of the bill. "If Iowans, if businesses are expected to stay here, we need to provide them with power." A huge step? Well, it just may be : The Iowa House gave the go-ahead Tuesday to legislation that helps pave the way for a new nuclear power plant in Iowa It’s MidAmerican that wants to build a new nuclear plant – this legislation doesn’t mandate that occurring, it just allows MidAmerican to charge ratepayers a modest monthly fee to help pay for the construction. That may sound obnoxious. In fact, the story in the Sioux City Journal leaves objectivity to say so: Whether MidAmerican Energy will decide to build a plant is not a done deal, but its ratepayers would be on the hook to help cover the cost of nearly all facets of the pre-planni...

We wrote yesterday about Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s support for nuclear energy. It looks like the legislature there is about to act on that support: The chairman of the Iowa House commerce committee says there's enough support to move a bill that sets out how a new nuclear power plant would be built in the state. "I still sense there's a lot of support on this bill, especially because there are concerns with a lack of new (energy) generation in this state," said Rep. Chuck Soderberg, R-Le Mars. That’s from today, so we should know soon how it goes. This story doesn’t actually explain the bill. This one does : The Iowa Legislature would have to pass a bill to allow the change in energy rates because MidAmerican, even though it's a privately-owned company, doesn't have the authority to set its own rates -- instead regulators set the prices the company can charge, Fehrman said. At first, I thought this was to implement CWIP - Construction W...

While this article in the Baltimore Sun initially focuses on job cuts, it later gives a good summary of the choices shareholders will have in deciding the fate of Constellation. Here is what I want to talk about: The EDF proposal unveiled Wednesday called for selling half of Constellation's nuclear power assets to the French firm for $4.5 billion, including an immediate down payment of $1 billion in cash, and also selling several non-nuclear power plants to the company for as much as $2 billion. The rest of Constellation would remain roughly the same, publicly traded and operating out of its Baltimore headquarters. So how does the fact that a French company is so keen to buy the nuclear assets, but not the entire company, play with a new administration that says it will address energy policy right away? How does it play with Wall Street investors? What would be the effect of a French company owning and operating nuclear power plants in the U.S.? Discuss among yourselves...

The Wall Street Journal has a story about Warren Buffett's pending purchase of Constellation Energy and, particularly from our point of view, its UniStar subsidiary, a nuclear consortia that includes Electricite de France , AREVA and Bechtel . The WSJ has no idea how Buffett might proceed with its Unistar subsidiary: On Thursday, MidAmerican chief executive Greg Abel sounded more enthusiastic about the technology, saying "we're committed to new nuclear." But: Mr. Buffett's sudden emergence raises questions about whether nuclear development, in general, has viability, according to Paul Patterson, head of Glenrock Associates LLC in New York, a research firm. "It's a very cloudy picture," Mr. Patterson says, "And, so far, we don't have anyone making a firm decision to go forward." [We're not sure if he means Buffett, which would be an awfully early call, or the industry, which is plainly false.] What is not fully noted in the sto...

Over the past few days we've seen a number of announcements that have given some folks pause over the near-term prospects for a resurgence in the American nuclear energy industry. In particular, we've seen both SCANA in South Carolina and a group in Idaho headed by Warren Buffet pull away from plans to build reactors. For some insight into why these decisions were made, I asked NEI's Vice President of Policy Development, Richard J. Myers , to weigh in with his thoughts: We’ve seen a couple of announcements over the last few days that various companies are adjusting their plans for new nuclear generating capacity. Mid-American Energy announced that it will not pursue development of a new nuclear plant in Idaho – partly due to concerns about cost, partly because of difficulties in coming to terms with suppliers over risk-sharing. South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper also announced that they would defer their application for a construction/operating lice...