Skip to main content

Latest Issue of Nuclear Policy Outlook Available

By
Building Confidence in Licensing New U.S. Nuclear Plants

Now that companies have submitted license applications for new nuclear power plants, the industry, regulator, financial community and others are taking stock of the challenges that lie ahead. Demonstrating confidence and stability in the new NRC licensing process is a critical first step toward building new reactors in the United States. This issue of Nuclear Policy Outlook focuses on how companies are meeting the key challenges of licensing new nuclear plants, their recent successes and plans for the future. For the PDF version click here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Speaking of "Building Confidence in the Licensing Process," this notice in today's Federal Register (02-20-2008)regarding the first of the "completed" COL applications submitted:

"The Commission is issuing a Notice Withdrawing the Hearing Notice Regarding the Application for a Combined Operating License for South Texas Project Units 3 and 4. This has the effect of indefinitely postponing the deadline by which petitions to intervene must be filed."

On you mark...
Get set...
Go... no wait...
stop... indefinitely

That's an expensive crappy application---and it do NOT build confidence in the licensing process as it took the filing of a motion to suspend even an expedited rubberstamping one.
February 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Anonymous said…
Wrong again, Gunter. That was so last week. Way back on 2/14, the Clinton News Network (CNN) stated that "NRG last month told federal regulators that cost negotiations were continuing with its reactor vendors, which would make it difficult for the company to respond to specific design questions the government has about the application, NRG spokesman David Knox said Thursday." That's not a bad application, it is a cost uncertainty issue, which I figured you would be all over, as you are fond of claiming nuclear power is too expensive, while you simulataneously attempt to drive up costs with your intervention.
February 20, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said…
The reason for the delay is that Toshiba and GE-Hitachi cannot reach an agreement going forward. GEH prepared the COLA, an excellent work product. When it came time to decide the EPC contract Toshiba won. Toshiba has not been able to reach an agreement with GEH to provide the design basis for the STP COL application. NRG cannot build an ABWR design that was certified by GE without GEH support. Copyright issues apply to the decision making process. I thought NRG was a smarter company than they appear to be.
February 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more