Update - PSEG’s new nuke - they’re insane!
June 12th, 2010
At the end of May, PSEG announced that they have filed an “Early Site Permit Application” with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a new nuclear plant at the Salem-Hope Creek site on the Delaware River. This is an “Early Site Permit Application” but it’s one that has the “opportunity” for a contested case, meaning we’ve got to act, because only intervenors are parties, only parties have any rights. So, it’s time to check out what they’re proposing and get ready.
Here’s their press release:
PSEG Power and PSEG Nuclear file Early Site Permit Application
It’s now available, posted on the NRC website (PSEG wouldn’t send me one directly, and that was about three weeks ago that I’d asked):
The NRC Press Release says:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made available to the public an Early Site Permit (ESP) application for the PSEG site near Salem, N.J.
The applicants, PSEG Power and PSEG Nuclear, submitted the application and associated information on May 25. The application, minus proprietary and security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/pseg.html
PSEG’s ESP application seeks resolution of safety and environmental issues for the site, approximately seven miles southwest of Salem. The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial check of the application to determine whether it contains sufficient information required for a formal review. If the application passes the initial check, the NRC will “docket,” or accept it for review; this decision is expected by early August. If the application is accepted, the NRC will then announce an opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on the application.
More information about the new reactor licensing process is available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html.
The PSEG Press Release from May says:
The preferred location for a potential new plant would be adjacent to PSEG Nuclear’s Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations now in operation in Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County. The site is currently the second largest nuclear facility in the United States.
That’s right across the Delaware river from us in Port Penn, Delaware… as if three reactors at Salem and Hope Creek aren’t enough? Plus I’ve got two here just upriver and upwind in Red Wing. AAAAAAAAAAGH!
And let me get this straight, they think this can fly? Who would finance it? Oh, right, the feds…but WHY?
Who would buy that power that will be so expensive, even with subsidies? They want to build this as an independent power producer… and the energy market is GLUTTED. Who would buy it? At what price?
- Energy prices are at an all time low, peak demand is at an all time low.
- PJM State of the Market Report 2009 - Marketing Analytics
- PJM State of the Market Report 2010 (1Q) - Marketing Analytics
- On the other hand, nuclear, NEW nuclear, is at an all time high, the capital cost is well over $6,500/kw. Unless it’s subsidized 100% by ratepayers, who could afford it — but anything is easy to afford if someone else pays, so…
- Taxpayers and ratepayers pay?
What planet are they on?
Yes, they ARE insane!
PSEG’s NEW NUKE - ARE THEY INSANE???
May 25th, 2010
PSEG has announced that they have filed an “Early Site Permit Application” with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
PSEG Power and PSEG Nuclear file Early Site Permit Application
It’s now on the NRC website:
The Press Release says:
The preferred location for a potential new
plant would be adjacent to PSEG Nuclear’s Salem and Hope Creek
Generating Stations now in operation in Lower Alloways Creek, Salem
County. The site is currently the second largest nuclear facility in
the United States.That’s right across the river from us in Port Penn, Delaware…
And let me get this straight, they think this can fly? Who would finance it? Who would buy it?
- Energy prices are at an all time low, peak demand is at an all time low.
- PJM State of the Market Report 2009 - Marketing Analytics
- PJM State of the Market Report 2010 (1Q) - Marketing Analytics
- On the other hand, nuclear, NEW nuclear, is at an all time high, the capital cost is well over $6,500/kw. Unless it’s subsidized 100% by ratepayers, who could afford it — anything is easy to afford if someone else pays, so…
What planet are they on?
Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium — gone?!?!?!
May 8th, 2010
I read with horror news of Rep. Bill Hilty’s amendment eliminating the moratorium on new nuclear generating plants that passed in a House Ominous Bill this week. WHAT ARE THESE YAHOOS THINKING? The Senate already approved it, and now the House… and I just can’t see Pawlenty doing anything but signing it with glee.
(sudden feeling of ice picks going through temples… buried in brain… electricity applied…)
AAAAAAAAGH!
Is this the “price” of the rollback of exemptions of utilities from eminent domain laws? Is it an attempt to look like they’re repealing it when “conditions” mean it won’t happen? (like those that said Obama really doesn’t mean what he’s saying about coal gasification or transmission, he knows better) Is it more of the same deal-making that took the Renewable Development Fund away from PrairIe Island Indian Community, or the enviro sell-outs that gave us the 2005 Transmission bill? Minnesota’s second nuclear waste storage facility at Monticello, now two piles piling with no plan in sight, PERMANENT?
What I’m hearing about this from various little birdies….
… is NOT encouraging — ooooohhhhhhh do I have a headache…
… apparently NO ONE OBJECTED!
NO ONE OBJECTED?!?!?!?!
AAAAAAAAGH!
Here’s the bill as it is on the Senate site:
Here’s how Rep. Bill Hilty, Chair of House Energy, amended it:
Page 4, after line 11, insert:
“Sec. 4. [216B.1695] NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; COST RECOVERY.
(a) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers until the plant begins operating at a monthly load capacity factor of at least 85 percent:
(1) planning, design, safety, environmental, or engineering studies undertaken prior to construction; or
(2) the costs of obtaining regulatory approval, including permits, licenses and any other approval required prior to construction from federal, state and local authorities.
(b) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers:
Journal of the House - 98th Day - Thursday, May 6, 2010 - Top of Page 11584
(1) any construction costs exceeding the projected construction cost of the generating plant and any ancillary facility constructed by the utility to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant, as identified in the utility’s certificate of need application submitted under section 216B.243;
(2) the costs of insuring the plant against accidents that exceed the cost of insurance for a fossil fuel plant of equivalent capacity; or
(3) contributions from the plant to provide and maintain local fire protection and emergency services to the plant in case of an accident.
(c) Except for regulatory costs of state agencies, no revenues from taxes or fees imposed by the state of Minnesota may be used to pay for any portion of the preconstruction, construction, maintenance, or operating costs of a nuclear generating plant, or to assume any financial risk associated with an accidental release of radioactivity from the generating plant or an ancillary facility constructed by the utility that owns the generating plant to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 216B.243, subdivision 3b, is amended to read:
Subd. 3b. Nuclear power plant; new construction prohibited; relicensing. (a) The commission may not issue a certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant provided that the certificate of need application contains a separate estimate of preconstruction and construction costs that does not include any of the costs identified in section 216B.1695, paragraphs (a) and (b).
(b) Any certificate of need for additional storage of spent nuclear fuel for a facility seeking a license extension shall address the impacts of continued operations over the period for which approval is sought.”
Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references
Amend the title accordingly.
Way below is the list of yeas and nays, do send each of them a missive:
The ones who voted against it are the strangest set of bedfellows! But KUDOS TO THEM!
If you click on this to look at the whole back and forth with amendments, scroll to p. 11579 to start. Here’s the vote:
The bill was read for the third time, as amended, and placed upon its final passage.
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Those who voted in the negative were:
Prairie Island Comments due TODAY?!?
May 25th, 2009
Yes, that’s the Prairie Island plant back behind Ken’s rump!
Comments are due on the big picture for the Prairie Island power uprate and siting of more dry casks. yes, the notice says today:
And it says:
Deadline for written public comments to the Administrative Law Judge on the Certificate of Need (CON) and Site Permit applications must be received by May 25, 2009.
And here’s what the hearing and what comments should address:
Purpose of Hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to compile the record for the Commission to consider in making a final decision on the CON and the Site Permit requests. The ALJ will write a report and make a recommendation to the Commission on (1) the need for the extended power uprate (EPU) project, (2) the need for the Additional Dry Cask Storage project, and (3) on site selection, including any appropriate site permit conditions. The Commission will make a final decision on the need and site permit at a subsequent Commission hearing. The Commission must issue a Certificate of Need prior to issuing a Site Permit.
City of Red Wing asks the right questions
April 25th, 2009
Remember Xcel isn’t too happy about the City of Red Wing intervening? See “Xcel not a happy camper” from last month.
Maybe it’s because Red Wing has a stake in this, as host to Xcel’s Prairie Island nuclear generating plant.
Here we see that in Information Requests in the Prairie Island uprate and dry cask docket at the PUC, the City of Red Wing is asking the right questions:
Here’s a couple that I find extremely amusing, starting with IR-21:
or this one… IR-22:
and IR-23:
and IR-24:
Yes, we are having fun now.
I wonder… will they give the City of Red Wing a copy of EPRI’s “The TN-24P PWR Spent-Fuel Storage Cask: Testing and Analyses” report? That’s EPRI report NP-5128. Let’s see the results of that “Three Stooges” INEL unloading attempt where the assembly got stuck half out, half in, and wouldn’t move… HILARIOUS, I’ve never seen such a rip-snortin’ report, hard to read between the lines without busting a gut!