Skip to main content

The Happiest Place in the World

That of course would be Walt Disney World, but in neighboring Levy county, the next most happiest, Progress Energy is set to build a new nuclear power plant. The response by Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas is exceptionally upbeat:

Locally, the only major controversy comes from neighboring Citrus County, which houses the utility's Crystal River nuclear plant and is miffed it isn't getting this one.

The state of Florida is gung-ho, which means no major obstacles from the Public Service Commission or Department of Environmental Protection.

Nuclear power is the only option available to meet Gov. Charlie Crist's ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A new state law will allow Progress Energy to begin collecting money for the $17 billion facility in advance. So the utility's customers could see a $9 bump in an average electric bill beginning in January.

To speed up the federal review process, Progress Energy plans to use a next-generation Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission already has signed off on the basic design.

The only way this plant does not get built is if Progress Energy makes a business decision not to build it.

That I can make such a statement without being laughed out of the newsroom shows how far we have come in our view of nuclear power.

And the money line?

I would much rather live down the street from a Westinghouse AP1000 than a coal-fired plant.

Wouldn't we all?

---

Also at the Orlando Sentinel is an op-ed extolling the virtues of loan guarantees to build new plants. Lynn Edward Weaver is president emeritus of the Florida Institute of Technology and does an excellent job explaining that it is appropriate and historically apt that government take a role here.

Federal support for a strategically important energy source is hardly new. We wouldn't have the oil, gas or coal industries as they are today without massive federal support. Wind and solar power exist only because of government subsidies. The main alternative fuel for vehicles -- ethanol -- is totally a result of tax credits and subsidies. For national security and environmental requirements, the government has an appropriate role in supporting the development of clean, American energy sources. And the request for nuclear is not an outright subsidy -- just a guarantee that if an extremely serious and unlikely delay occurred, the government would help fund the additional cost. Most experts agree that it is extremely unlikely that the guarantees would ever cost the government a dollar.

Weaver does not mention that new plant over in Levy County, so this might be an editorial making the rounds, but since he is a Floridian, his words added to Thomas' suggest a strong vote for nuclear power in the state. All those trips to Tomorrowland have paid off.

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…