The nuclear disaster in Japan continues, new twists unfolding each day…

Japan agency says crippled nuclear plant operator missed inspections before disaster struck – STrib

In a report released March 2, nine days before the disasters, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency cited Tokyo Electric Power Co. for ignoring inspection schedules and failing to examine 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.

And as for conditions at the Fukushima nuclear site, an update from Bloomberg News:

Cooling pools holding spent-fuel rods atop the plant’s six reactors were below 100 degrees Celsius (212 Fahrenheit), the boiling point of water, Japan Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said last night in a news conference. The company said it needs to replace power components at reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4.

No. 1: The temperature outside the reactor’s pressure vessel fell to 385 degrees Celsius, as of 3 a.m. from 400 degrees as of 3 a.m. yesterday, Hikaru Kuroda, an official in Tokyo Electric’s nuclear management department, said today. The reactor was damaged on March 12 by a hydrogen explosion that destroyed the building’s walls. The reactor is rated level five in terms of threat on an international scale of 1-7.

No. 2: The temperature outside the reactor’s pressure vessel fell below 160 degrees Celsius, as of 3 a.m., Kuroda said. Workers reconnected a 1.5-kilometer (1 mile) power cable on March 19 to the unit. A March 15 explosion may have damaged the containment chamber. The reactor is rated a level-five threat.

No. 3: Smoke was seen rising from the building of the reactor at about 3:55 p.m. local time. Workers were evacuated from the building, spokesman Kaoru Yoshida said. Workers connected a power cable to the No. 3 and 4 reactors. The temperature inside the reactor dropped below 200 degrees Celsius, the Fukushima plant operator said earlier today. The Japanese Self Defense Force and firefighters have doused a total of 3,742 metric tons of water on the reactor since March 17, the government agency said in a statement. A March 14 explosion damaged the unit’s fuel cover. The reactor is rated a level-five threat.

No. 4: Japanese Self Defense Forces have sprayed a total of 255 tons of water toward the reactor building since yesterday. A fire broke out in the pond containing spent-fuel rods. The nuclear agency said March 17 there may be no water in the cooling pool. It’s rated four in terms of threat. This reactor was undergoing maintenance when the earthquake hit.

No. 5: The reactor achieved cold shutdown at 2:30 p.m. local time yesterday when the temperature fell below 100 degrees Celsius yesterday, Megumi Iwashita, Tepco spokeswoman, said. The unit was idle for maintenance before the earthquake.

No. 6: The reactor achieved cold shutdown at 7:27 p.m. when the temperature fell below 100 degrees Celsius yesterday, Iwashita said. A backup generator was fixed March 19, according to a company press release. The unit was idle for maintenance before the earthquake.

Isn’t it time for those who did the deal allowing new and increased dry cask storage at Monticello (same boiling water reactor as Fukushima’s) and Prairie Island to say NO!   From the New York Times, for those of us here in Minnesota by our own GE boiling water plant in Minnesota, info on the design of that type of plant:

Deconstructing a Controversial Design


Nuclear? I don’t think so…

November 6th, 2010

birdie-eveninggrosbeak

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.

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.

corneli-nrg-vice-president.jpg

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!

Corneli on Stranded Assets

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:

nrgsiteplan.jpg

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?”

nrgclinton

The fate of nuclear power after midterm elections

Posted on 11/03/2010

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.”

salemi.jpg

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:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/pseg.html

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.
  1. PJM State of the Market Report 2009 – Marketing Analytics
  2. 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?

breaktime

That’s “my” Prairie Island nuclear generating plant in the background, just upwards of Ken’s hinder.  This was taken at Lock & Dam #3 back when she chased tennis balls and still had a black muzzle.  As you read this keep in mind that I live on a bluff directly downwind and down stream from the two nuclear reactors at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, and in Delaware, directly across the Delaware River from three nuclear reactors at the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear generating plants.  I moved here both because I could afford it and because it gave me standing in any nuclear proceeding.

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….

vulture-eating

… is NOT encouraging — ooooohhhhhhh do I have a headache…

… apparently NO ONE OBJECTED!

NO ONE OBJECTED?!?!?!?!

screamhomer

AAAAAAAAGH!

Here’s the bill as it is on the Senate site:

SF 2971

Here’s how Rep. Bill Hilty, Chair of House Energy, amended it:

Hilty, Faust, Norton and Obermueller moved to amend S. F. No. 2971, the third engrossment, as amended, as follows:

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:

MEMBERS OF MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

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:

S. F. No. 2971, A bill for an act relating to energy; making technical changes and modifying provisions related to utility report filings, hydrogen energy projects, weatherization programs, high-voltage transmission lines, public utility commission assessments, and utility metering for supportive housing; removing obsolete and redundant language; authorizing individuals and entities to take certain easements in agricultural land; providing for certain reporting requirements; providing for wind and solar easements; amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 16E.15, subdivision 2; 117.225; 216B.16, by adding a subdivision; 216B.241, subdivision 2; 216B.812, subdivision 2; 216C.264; 216E.03, subdivision 7; 216E.18, subdivision 3; 326B.106, subdivision 12; 500.221, subdivisions 2, 4;
Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11596

Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 117.189; Laws 2008, chapter 296, article 1, section 25; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2008, sections 216C.19, subdivisions 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 216C.262; Minnesota Statutes 2009 Supplement, section 216C.19, subdivision 17.

The bill was read for the third time, as amended, and placed upon its final passage.

The question was taken on the passage of the bill and the roll was called.  There were 86 yeas and 43 nays as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:

Abeler
Anderson, S.
Anzelc
Atkins
Beard
Benson
Bigham
Bly
Brown
Brynaert
Bunn
Carlson
Cornish
Dill
Dittrich
Doty
Eken
Faust
Fritz
Gardner
Hansen
Haws
Hayden
Hilstrom
Hilty
Hosch
Howes
Huntley
Jackson
Johnson
Juhnke
Kahn
Kalin
Kath
Kelly
Knuth
Koenen
Laine
Lanning
Lenczewski
Liebling
Lieder
Lillie
Loeffler
Loon
Mahoney
Marquart
Masin
McFarlane
McNamara
Morgan
Morrow
Murdock
Murphy, E.
Murphy, M.
Nelson
Newton
Nornes
Norton
Obermueller
Olin
Otremba
Pelowski
Persell
Peterson
Poppe
Reinert
Rosenthal
Rukavina
Ruud
Sailer
Scalze
Sertich
Simon
Slawik
Slocum
Solberg
Sterner
Swails
Thao
Thissen
Tillberry
Ward
Welti
Westrom
Spk. Kelliher

Those who voted in the negative were:

Anderson, B.
Anderson, P.
Brod
Buesgens
Champion
Clark
Davids
Davnie
Dean
Demmer
Dettmer
Doepke
Downey
Eastlund
Falk
Garofalo
Gottwalt
Greiling
Gunther
Hamilton
Hausman
Holberg
Hoppe
Hornstein
Hortman
Kiffmeyer
Kohls
Mack
Magnus
Mariani
Mullery
Paymar
Peppin
Sanders
Scott
Seifert
Severson
Shimanski
Torkelson
Urdahl
Wagenius
Winkler
Zellers

Xcel not happy camper

April 1st, 2009

xcel-logo

April Fools!  Well, maybe not…

The Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant uprate and dry cask docket is sparking a bit, warm, and maybe getting hot!

Just in, this Xcel Energy response to City of Red Wing’s Intervention and request for extension of schedule:

Xcel letter to ALJ Luis – April 1, 2009

Here’s Red Wing’s Motion, filed with their Intervention, that’s got Xcel hopping:

Motion to Amend First Prehearing Order

In Xcel’s letter, you can feel them jumping and twitching…

prairie-island-nuclear-plant