Nuclear? I don’t think so…
November 6th, 2010
A little birdie sent this about “our Stevie,” former Minnesota Asst. A.G. Steve Corneli, now a Senior V.P. at NRG, is in the news.
Steve Corneli — he was the one who “clarified” that nuclear stranded costs (BIG BIG $$$$ which Northern States Power was claiming were due in the event of deregulation which they were fighting for) was really stranded ASSETS! Yes, dear readers, you’ve heard this before, but if you haven’t read this report, from the dark ages of 1997, please do, because incorporating this shift in perspective on stranded costs can free your soul!
And you may remember that dreadful idea on his watch that NRG should put an IGCC (coal gasification) plant in Delaware at its Indian River site with THIS, below, as a site plan, I kid you not:
Oh, my, that instills confidence, doesn’t it!
And so what’s he up to now? He’s pushing nuclear power, and next to him, there’s the Obama administration pushing nuclear power… and they wonder why we’re “disappointed?”
The fate of nuclear power after midterm elections
by Brian Wheeler, Associate Editor, Power-Gen Worldwide
In the largest shift of power since 1948, Republicans took over the U.S. House on midterm election night. And the nuclear industry could benefit from the Republican takeover as part of the clean energy legislation.
In a statement released the morning of Election Day, Don Gillispie, CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., said that if Republicans won, the other big winner would be nuclear power. Well, we do know that Republicans have won the House and have made up ground in the Senate as well, even though Democrats still hold the majority.
Historically there has been more support from Republicans for nuclear power. But Steve Corneli, senior vice president of market and climate policy for NRG Energy, said there is an increasing awareness from Democrats that nuclear power can be an important part of energy independence and a zero-carbon emission future.
Michigan representative Fred Upton, like many Republicans, is a supporter of nuclear power in the U.S. Upton is also a strong contender to head the House Energy and Commerce Committee; the committee that sees over the national energy policy.
“Through a greater commitment to nuclear, we have a unique opportunity to cut greenhouse gases, provide stability to our electrical supply and create jobs,” Upton told Reuters.
John Boehner (R-OH) is expected to take over as the new Speaker of the House and is also a strong proponent of nuclear power.
“The new Congress will be more pro-nuclear than any Congress we’ve seen in decades,” said Gillispie.
And President Obama continues to promote nuclear power, too.
“There’s been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases,” Obama said during a speech the day after the midterm elections. “Is that an area where we can move forward?”
As of now, that seems to be possible. The White House has requested an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear plants and it seems that Republicans are likely to support the measure, even with a big focus during the campaign on reducing government spending.
But Corneli said the interesting part is that the important policy measures that are needed to help jump start the nuclear renaissance are the ones with the lowest cost to federal treasury, and those are the federal loan guarantees, “which really don’t cost the treasury anything.”
“Essentially it is self-financing,” he said. “It seems like the stars could be lining up right now for a boost in nuclear power development.”
Corneli said nuclear is established and the existing fleet of nuclear reactors provide the lowest cost power currently on the grid, but there hasn’t been a new plant built in roughly 30 years.
“We actually think that nuclear power has the potential to be the real foundation of clean energy technology,” he said.Gillispie seems to agree.
“When the history of nuclear power is written, Nov. 2, 2010 will be a major turning point for the industry,” said Gillispie. “It will mark the beginning of a dramatic resurgence for nuclear power.”
Delaware’s O’Donnell… OH MY DOG!
October 20th, 2010
We’ve been in Minnesota since late April, thankfully, because if I were in Delaware right now, it’d be hard to not flee for the border. So is Alan going back to vote? Chris or Christine, either way Delaware loses…
Listen to the guffaws and watch her expression, she is clueless, utterly clueless, what a nutwad:
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: