Skip to main content

Latest Issue of Nuclear Policy Outlook Available

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.

Comments

gunter 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.
DLH 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.
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.

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …