Skip to main content

The Money Trap

turkey_point_3 If we didn’t like nuclear power very much and our arguments against it were running a little thin, we might consider using current events as a wedge. For example, you may have heard that the economy has been struggling. Hence:

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which is opposing new nuclear plants in several states, will ask the PSC to re-evaluate the urgency for new nuclear energy in Florida given the recession and the slowing growth of the utilities' customer base.

This comes from the Orlando Sentinel and nowhere in the story does the SACE say anything about mutated alligators making a meal out of grandma or radioactive sludge in the everglades. It’s all about the money – admittedly a big subject for all power plants, but most particularly for nuclear energy plants. So what is the response?

Progress officials said Friday they have already taken into account the country's economic downturn and its project's construction delays by reducing how much they want to bill customers next year for new nuclear power.

The utility is asking for permission to charge its customers $6.69 a month for the typical consumption of 1,000 kilowatt-hours, spokeswoman Suzanne Grant said. She noted that the utility could have sought more than $12 a month.

We might have advised Grant not to bring up how much Progress could have charged – after all, that’s not an issue here and it sounds petty – we only gave you six lashes instead of twelve, so quit bellyaching. True enough, but pain is pain.

But beyond advice, $80/year above increases Progress might charge in the years ahead might seem, during a recession, a little heady – and require some good justification.

And they have it: SACE isn’t really on a very firm footing – that there might not be sufficient urgency reminds us of the argument that nuclear energy is an old, dusty technology that should make way for shiny new energy sources. It’s as though our time horizon roosts at the beginning or end of the current week.

Florida Power & Light, also in the nuclear building business, put it simply:

FPL, like Progress, contends that nuclear-power plants, though they take nearly a decade to license and build, are an increasingly needed source of electricity that does not contribute to climate change.

"That means working on power plants years in advance, so that they will be ready to provide dependable electric service to our customers when they need it," FPL spokesman Mayco Villafaña said.

Villafana gets it exactly right. While we wouldn’t wish for it, we may well see a couple more sickening drops on the roller coaster that is the economy before any plant (of any kind) can get itself up and running, so that’s no particular reason to bet the energy future on what the economy does or doesn’t do.

Le’s watch this one, though. Politics tends to be nearby any Public Service Commission action and politicians might well see this as an opportunity to demagogue the recession. We’ll see.

Turkey Point, one of FP&L’s plants.

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 …

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 …