Archive for the ‘News’ Category

May 2, 2013

By Editors
Real Clear Energy

Is coal dead? Well maybe not entirely. Coal’s share of the electric grid has declined to 43 percent but companies are finding they can sell their surpluses abroad. Europe is moving back to coal after being stretched to the limit by Gazprom on natural gas prices. Illinois reports a record year for exports and Oklahoma is talking about a coal comeback. The railroads are gaining on new shipments. But Patriot Coal, one of the largest domestic producers, is caught in a vice with its unions and facing bankruptcy.

Nuclear continues to thrive abroad and wither at home. Mitsubishi and Areva have won a joint bid to develop a reactor in Turkey. Russia has announced it will invest $31 billion in developing its nuclear technology. But Southern California Electric says it may close its huge San Onofre Reactor if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t allow it to reopen soon. And in Texas, the NRC has killed the South Texas project on the basis of – get this – the two reactors were going to be built by a foreign company, Toshiba. Do they think there are any American companies left in the nuclear construction business?

Colorado will up its renewable requirement from 10 percent to 20 percent under a law now awaiting Governor John Hickenlooper’s signature. He’ll sign. But in Connecticut the state senate has undercut environmentalists’ push for more renewables by allowing Canadian hydropower to count under that category. The enviros wanted the mandate to be satisfied only by solar and wind.

Finally, Stuart Barns suggests on OilPrice that maybe the current energy boom is going to lead to a revival in manufacturing. There have been a lot of conflicting claims on this lately. In National Interest, Amy Harder notes that we have lots more oil and gas than we thought and the Texas Tribune says there’s lots more shale out there to be discovered And on Atomic Insights, And on Atomic Insights, NuScale CEO Paul Lorenzini tackles a ridiculous study that claims nuclear reactors kill more birds than windmills. He makes a good case for scientific fraud.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

By Nolan Hicks, Staff Writer
San Antonio Express-News

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission found this week that a foreign company is too heavily involved in plans to build two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project installation.

Under federal law, companies that are owned, controlled or "dominated" by a foreign individual, company or country are barred from holding licenses to operate nuclear reactors. The regulator notified the groups involved of its finding in a letter that it sent Monday afternoon.

"We think it’s encouraging that the NRC is recognizing that this is the law and it needs to remain in effect," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition, which has opposed the STP expansion from the beginning.

The matter will now go to a panel of three administrative judges in Washington, D.C., which previously dismissed a series of environmental challenges to the project, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the NRC.

"It’s part of the process that we need to proceed on to… to finally get the issue resolved," said Mark McBurnett, chief executive of Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, a joint-venture between NRG Energy and Toshiba Corporation, which has been leading the effort to acquire the licenses from the NRC to build the two reactors.

The project at STP, located in Matagorda County, has been fraught with delays and complications since it first applied for the nuclear licenses in 2007.

City-owned CPS Energy was one of the initial partners in the expansion project, which would have brought the number of reactors at STP to four. However, the utility ended its involvement after its senior management failed to disclose that unofficial estimates that showed the cost of the new reactors had risen dramatically, resulting in a political firestorm.

CPS, however, maintains a 7.625 percent stake in the expansion project.

The effort to add those two reactors at STP took another blow when NRG Energy, which owns 90 percent of NINA, announced that it was withdrawing direct support of the project in 2011, following the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. It had hoped that the operator of the Fukashima plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company, would be a major investor in the expansion.

The remaining 10 percent of NINA is owned by Toshiba Corporation, a Japanese engineering and electronics conglomerate, which was left to foot the bill for pursuing the licenses from federal regulators after NRG ended its support.

This report includes material from the Express-News archives.

Twitter: @ndhapple

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Bay News 9

In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano is calling for a billion-dollar refund to customers.

ST. PETERSBURG — In response to Duke Energy’s announcement to close the Crystal River nuclear plant, State Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, is calling for a $1 billion refund to customers.

Fasano is calling for Duke Energy/Progress Energy Florida to refund all the money that has been collected from its customers in the name of a repair project that is now being abandoned.

The lawmaker says the plant has been plagued with problems and with the closure customers will not see any return on their forced investment. Fasano represents the state’s 36th district, which includes parts of Citrus, Hernando, Pasco and Pinellas counties.

"This utility has collected over $1.3 billion dollars from its customers for the repair of its broken power plant that apparently will now never be fixed," Fasano said. "The poor choices made by Duke/ Progress Energy’s present and former executives leave customers with nothing to show for the huge bills they have been forced to pay."

Repairing and improving the plant would have cost $3.4 billion and taken years. The 36-year-old plant has not produced power since 2009.

"All told, customer’s bank accounts are emptier, and their wallets are lighter, while the utility will pocket huge sums of money that doubtfully will ever be returned to the people who paid it," Fasano said. "The lack of transparency during this ordeal, the promises not kept and the false hopes all are dashed with today’s announcement."

More Reaction

Rep. Richard Nugent (R), Florida District 11

"For the six hundred families who are directly affected by Duke Energy’s decision, this is going to be a devastating blow. But the economic impact of the decision goes far beyond just the workers employed at the plant. The plant has been a key economic engine in this community for thirty years and all of Citrus County will be affected in a very real way.
"Community leaders all over the county have been pushing Progress and then Duke Energy to repair the plant for years now, including myself. I know all parties involved have worked as hard as possible to find a solution for Citrus County and the focus will now shift to making sure that Citrus will be home to future investments by the company. In particular, the natural gas-fueled plant being considered by Duke would be a tremendous asset for the state and for the community for years to come and I plan on working with both the leaders in this community and Duke Energy in the coming months to find a viable way forward. It’s energy and it’s jobs and Central Florida desperately needs both. I know we’re all going to do everything we can.

"The employees affected by this closure are extremely capable engineers and operators and they are truly an asset to this community and to the industry. I am extremely hopeful that as the Crystal River facility is taken offline and as the Levy facility is brought online, that these employees will continue to find a home with Duke Energy. It’s a mighty tough day for Citrus County, but I know we’re all going to turn our eyes now to the future to see what is possible."

Joe Meek, Citrus County Commission Chairman

"While we are disappointed in the decision to retire the Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR3), Citrus County is committed to continuing to work with Progress Energy/Duke as we move forward. We are dedicated to having a solid relationship with Progress Energy/Duke and are committed to working through these difficult issues with them. Progress Energy/Duke will continue to be a vital part of our community both with their employees and with their investment in our county.

As the Chairman of the County Commission and President of our Economic Development Council, we have been working closely with Progress Energy/Duke on multiple economic development initiatives in our community. We will continue to work with them, as Duke explores their options for finding alternatives to replace power generating capacity, and potentially build a natural gas-fuel plant in Citrus County. We have had discussions with Progress Energy/Duke executives, and will continue to work closely with them on this important issue.
The decision today removes uncertainty about the future of CR3 for Citrus County, and further highlights the importance for us to work to diversify our local economy. The decision also highlights the drastic budget issues we are facing as a community. The County Commission has been preparing for this decision, and has made balancing the budget and diversifying our local economy the top priority.

While this decision will have a major impact on our community, it will provide an opportunity to redefine our priorities. We are a wonderful community, with a bright future. As a local government, we are dedicated and determined to work with our citizens, businesses, and community to make sure we do everything we can to ensure we are a successful and thriving County."

Feb 05, 2013

By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
Tampa Bay Times

Duke Energy announced early Tuesday it will permanently close the Crystal River Nuclear Plant that has been shut down since late 2009.

CRYSTAL RIVER — Duke Energy announced early Tuesday it will permanently close the crippled Crystal River nuclear plant that has been shut down since late 2009.

The company said it is reviewing alternatives, including building a new natural gas plant, to replace the power produced by the nuclear facility.

For customers, the final costs to resolve the loss of Duke’s sole nuclear plant in Florida could become staggering – upwards of $3 billion.

Customers already are on the hook for $1.3 billion in upgrades and maintenance costs to the nuclear plant, improvements that will now never produce any power. And a new natural gas plant will cost more than $1 billion. They also must pay the growing replacement power bill that has been accumulating since the plant went off line.

"This is a stark reminder of some of the of the risks you face in nuclear generation and construction,"said Charles Rehwinkel, deputy state public counsel who represents consumers before the Public Service Commission. "Unfortunately for the customers, it’s a heavy price too, at least it could be."

But Duke argues that closing the plant was the best course of action, given the risks and costs of repairing the 36-year-old plant.

"We believe the decision to retire the nuclear plant is in the best overall interests of our customers, investors, the state of Florida and our company,"said Jim Rogers, chairman, president and CEO of Duke Energy. "This has been an arduous process of modeling, engineering, analysis and evaluation over many months. The decision was very difficult, but it is the right choice."

"The Crystal River Nuclear Plant has been an important part of our generation fleet for three decades,"said Alex Glenn, state president of Progress Energy Florida, a subsidiary of Duke Energy. "We are very sensitive to the impact on our employees at the plant and on the Citrus County economy.

"We are working to place as many employees affected by today’s announcement in other positions within the company, and we are committed to working with Citrus County to lessen the effects as much as possible,"he said.

The decision to retire CR3, means it will become the first nuclear plant to close in Florida and the first major one to close in the entire southeast United States.

"The Commission is currently analyzing and reviewing information to determine the appropriate procedures for retiring CR3,"said Cindy Muir, a spokeswoman for the state Public Service Commission.

The move to close the nuclear plant was the culmination of a series of events that began in 2009.

That year, Progress Energy Florida, now part of Duke, planned to replace two steam generators and do upgrades that would increase the plant’s generating capacity by 20 percent.

The work is relatively routine, having been performed successfully at dozens of plants across the country.

Progress, however, self-managed the steam generator replacement rather than hire one of two companies all the other U.S. utilities used to oversee that work. The idea was to save money.

More problems followed.

In fall of 2009, as workers began the project, they cracked the reactor’s 42-inch thick concrete containment building. They repaired the wall only to discover their efforts had cracked the wall again. The plant has been idle since and costing as much as $300 million a year just to buy replacement power.

"This is a problem that came about as a result of an effort to extend the life of the plant,"said Rehwinkel, the consumer advocate.

Though other utilities had performed the work successfully, Rehwinkel said, "it just wasn’t in the cards for this plant. It’s a very unusual case."

The unusual case led to unusual agreements.

A year ago, state regulators approved the state’s largest utility settlement because of damage at the Crystal River plant. The settlement means Duke’s Florida customers are receiving $388 million for money spent buying replacement power with Crystal River out of service.

In addition, Duke reached a separate agreement with its insurance company, the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, for damage to the plant. The insurance is paying Duke a total of $835 million – the insurer’s largest claim in its history.

Mike Hughes, a Duke spokesman, said the insurance money also will benefit customers by covering some of the costs for initial repairs and some of the replacement power bill.

But customers still are left with billions in expenses, some yet to come.

First, Duke will have to resolve the debt for upgrades and maintenance on Crystal River since 2009 that include $1.3 billion.

With the decision to close the plant, there are calls now for that money to be borne by Duke.

"The poor choices made by Duke/Progress Energy’s present and former executives leave customers with nothing to show for the huge bills they have been forced to pay,"said Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey.

Now, Duke has resolved to build a natural gas plant in place of the nuclear plant that would come online "as early as 2018,"Duke said in a statement.

Replacing CR3 with a natural gas plant would be costly for customers. Florida Power & Light, the state’s largest utility will open a new roughly 1,000 megawatt natural gas plant later this year at Cape Canaveral for about $1.2 billion.

Duke Energy says customers will benefit from the decision to delay the full dismantling of the plant for 40 to 60 years to allow its decommissioning fund to grow and cover the costs.

A 2008 study on the Crystal River nuclear plant estimated that decommissioning the reactor in 2013 would cost $936 million.

At the end of the third quarter of 2012, Duke’s Florida subsidiary, Progress Energy Florida, reported $621 million in its decommissioning fund.

The last nuclear plant to go through that process was the Maine Yankee plant in Wiscassett, Maine, that like CR3 was about a 900 megawatt plant. It took eight years to complete that process, which began in 1997.

Duke owns about 92 percent of the Crystal River plant. The co-owners’ share of 8 percent means they also will have to pay some of the decommissioning costs, an amount of less than $100 million.

Duke’s four coal-fired plants will remain in service at the same Citrus County complex where the nuclear plant, known as CR3, is located. But the utility plans to close the two oldest coal units within the next two to five years.

"It’s hard for the customer to find much to celebrate here,"said Peter Bradford, former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and senior fellow at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. "Yes, it puts an end to the seemingly bottomless exposure that they, the customer, had to imprudent conduct at Crystal River. But there’s all that money gone.

"And unless the Florida regulators have a major change of heart – or of brain – there’s no prospect of (customer) refunds for imprudent conduct,"Bradford said.

CR3 employed 600 workers. Shutting down the plant will reduce that to about 200 while Duke moves to decommission the reactor, said Hughes, the Duke spokesman.

Some of those workers will be relocated outside of Florida to other nuclear plants Duke owns.

Times staff writer Jeff Harrington contributed to this report. Ivan Penn can be reached at ipenn@tampabay.com or (727) 892-2332.

March 19, 2011

By John Couwels,
CNN

Texas ranchers David Huber, on the right, and his son Jason Huber consider the risks of a proposed nuclear plant, seven miles from their property.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Exelon wants to build a $16 billion nuclear plant near Victoria
• Supporters say it will be a boon to the small town’s economy
• The plant would lie on a "growth fault" that opponents say could be unsafe
• Exelon says growth faults are not seismic and do not pose a risk

Victoria, Texas (CNN) — This small Texas town is half a world away from the nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan.

Nevertheless, the calamity is having a ripple effect.

This week, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a scheduled two-day public hearing on a nuclear power plant near Victoria.

There, Texans for Sound Energy Policy got a chance to voice their opposition on the proposed plant that would be built by electric power giant Exelon Generation.

Those who support the plant repeatedly stated, "Nuclear power is a safe energy source" at the two-day hearing.

How close are you to a nuclear plant?

In addition, supporters argued that the $16 billion project would add over 750 permanent jobs and 2,500 temporary construction jobs.

The money spent on the plant would be nearly five times more than Victoria’s yearly budget, said Don Pozzi, an administrative judge and lifetime resident of Victoria County.

"That’s a lot of money," said Pozzi,.

In addition to the jobs, he argues the project would help add to the town’s coffers through sales taxes and real estate taxes from new housing.

That, he says, will help the small town of about 87,000 people continue to grow. And that’s exactly what rancher David Huber is afraid of — a larger Victoria with a nuclear power plant.

"I’ve been opposed from the beginning and I’m still opposed," said Huber, 62.

The proposed site for the reactor is located in a rural farming district approximately seven miles from Huber’s ranch. Huber, a 6-foot-2 rancher with a thick Texas accent and an affable personality, said he loves his land and his way of life. His family has been a part of the Victoria farming community since the late 1800s.

"The road Exelon is planning on using for heavy hauling, my grandfather built around 1920," the rancher said, while driving around his ranch with his son, Jason Huber.
Along the way, he proudly points the results of his family’s hard work.

"Our roots are in the ground."

His concerns over the dangers of a possible nuclear reactor so close to his ranch have increased since the nuclear disaster triggered by last week’s quake and tsunami in Japan, he said.

Japan’s nuclear crisis explained

Prior to choosing the location, Exelon Generation studied the possible impact of a nuclear power plant on Victoria’s community, water and ecology.

Exelon is the United States’ largest nuclear power plant operator, running 17 plants in 10 states.

See locations of U.S. nuclear power facilities

After studying the Victoria site, the power company found the risks to be low. But not everyone agrees.

"Nuclear power is a high risk, high stakes business," said Jim Blackburn with Texans for Sound Energy Policy at this week’s NRC public hearing.

There are plane crashes, people continue to fly. There are car accidents, people continue to drive. There’s going to be nuclear power.
–Don Pozzi, Victoria resident, supporter of proposed nuclear plant

The NRC must grant final approval before any new nuclear plants can be built and operated. No new nuclear plant has won final approval in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, although site work is being done at a couple of locations around the country.

At this week’s hearing, Exelon representative William Scott acknowledged the events in Japan, but he urged people not to overreact to what’s going on in light of the continuous news coverage of the unfolding crisis.

"Everyone here should be sobered by the events in Japan and by the seriousness of matters at hand," Scott said. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people in Japan."

Texas town OK with nuclear plant expansion

He said he understands people’s concerns and why politicians have taken a closer look at the safety plans for nuclear plants in their states.

"That’s a perfectly natural reaction. We expect to be held accountable, that’s part of our commitment to safety," said Scott.

The situation in Japan doesn’t seem to have any effect on those who steadfastly support the proposed nuclear plant near Victoria, Pozzi said.

"I don’t expect people will change their minds," he said. "I think people have had their minds made up."

He pointed to an unscientific online poll in the local newspaper, the Victoria Advocate, which found that despite the Japan incident, 53% of the 394 people polled said they favor the Victoria plant compared to 23% who oppose it.

"There are plane crashes, people continue to fly. There are car accidents, people continue to drive," Pozzi said. "There’s going to be nuclear power."
Victoria’s Mayor Will Armstrong agreed.

"My support hasn’t wavered at all," he said.

Victoria county commissioner Gary Burns said he and other city officials have "wined and dined" Exelon in hopes of bringing billions of dollars to Victoria’s economy. Burns said if the deal falls through, the town’s economic future is at risk.

Those who oppose the plant said the site where Exelon would build the plant lies on a "growth fault" which doesn’t trigger earthquakes but can cause the Earth to shift.
Blackburn and his Texans for Sound Energy Policy group fears the ground beneath the proposed nuclear site could sink, causing the cooling water ponds, vital to a nuclear plant, to drain away.

"It has active oil and gas extraction," Blackburn said about the proposed site. "It can and will change over time."

[What if] all of a sudden that [proposed] plant has a problem and there’s an evacuation for a 10 mile radius? I’m in the 10 miles radius. What do I do? Try and pick up and try to run? This is my life.
–David Huber, Texas rancher

Blackburn said Exelon has not addressed the growth fault issue in its filings with the NRC. But Steve Frantz, an attorney representing Exelon pointed out that the growth faults are "are not tectonic in nature."

A study of the area shows one growth fault in the area moved only 8 inches over 40 years.

"They pose no seismic threat," said Frantz. "The only threat is a possibility of surface deformation if the growth faults were to move."

He did say all safety structures including vital safety cooling ponds would be located away from the growth faults.

"We did find it and studied it," said Frantz. "We planned the safety-related structures 500 feet away, which we felt was more than adequate."

Blackburn insists that even though growth faults are not seismic, they still pose "potential dangers to the safe operation of a nuclear facility."

"TSEP believes that good engineering can address many potential safety issues," he said. "However, you cannot engineer around issues that are not recognized, studied and evaluated."

Some residents, like Huber, who would live near the proposed site, feel that it’s a risk that is not worth taking.

"(What if) all of a sudden that (proposed) plant has a problem and there’s an evacuation for a 10-mile radius?" the rancher wondered.

"I’m in the 10-mile radius. What do I do? Try and pick up and try to run? This is my life."

"Why would you even want to risk this natural beauty?" he asked, as he stood on the banks of the San Antonio River next to his ranch at sunset.