Archive for the ‘South Texas Project’ Category

By Lanny Sinkin
Guest OpEd – San Antonio Express-News

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Proponents of nuclear and fossil fuels are claiming all energy sources, including solar, have risks. ("All forms of energy have risk," Business, March 26). When you delve into the true nature of those risks, there really is no comparison.

There is no solar accident that even begins to approach the destructiveness of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Solar relies on a reactor that is perfectly placed — 93 million miles from Earth.

A major solar spill is what we call a nice day, hardly comparable to the Deepwater Horizon killing 11 people and producing a massive release of oil.

Replacing fossil fuel-generated electricity with solar dramatically reduces green house gases and helps to mitigate the worst effects of climate instability — a benefit, not a risk.

To compare solar risks to the risks from continued reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels is not rational, let alone logical.

The solar risks identified in the article are that "solar is expensive" and "hard to deploy at the necessary scale."

Solar costs are already below the price of proposed new nuclear projects. The price of nuclear projects will almost certainly increase as a result of the Japan catastrophe. The real cost of the Japanese nuclear plants will now include the billions of dollars spent to contain the meltdowns and deal with the aftermath.

Southern California Edison chose a future based on solar, rather than natural gas, for economic reasons. Solar costs are also within the competitive range with coal when the cost of building a coal plant is included. If coal had to pay for its health, environmental and climate-change damage, coal would not compete with solar.

As to installing enough to meet demand, I asked an engineer involved in developing the San Diego solar plan to estimate the amount of solar we could put on rooftops in San Antonio. His back-of-the-envelope estimate was 4,000 megawatts. By way of comparison, the new Spruce 2 coal plant is 750 megawatts.

The sidebar to the article says the best locations for solar "are far from population areas, so they require costly transmission infrastructure." While solar potential to the west is higher, we don’t need to go there. San Antonio rooftops are highly productive and feed into the existing transmission infrastructure.

The sidebar says "solar can’t be stored (although solar heat can for a while)." There is a concentrated solar plant being built in Spain that heats up an oil that stores enough heat to generate electricity for 15 hours after the sun goes down. There is ice storage, compressed air, pumped water, flywheels and a host of other storage technologies rapidly maturing or already in use.

The sidebar then gets ridiculous by saying, "Turbines and panels pose a threat to birds." There are problems with wind turbines killing birds and bats. We know of no recorded instance of a solar panel harming a bird in any way.

San Antonio can believe the spin and reluctantly move forward on solar. Or we can follow the bold leadership coming from CPS Energy and make San Antonio the national leader in solar.

We can build as much solar as we have the will to build. The real risk would be a failure to fully embrace our solar potential.

Lanny Sinkin is executive director of Solar San Antonio.

Protesters Want NRG Energy to Halt Nuclear Reactor Licensing

Download this press release in pdf format for printing

No More Chernobyls, No More Fukushimas, No More Nuclear Reactors

Media Release
April 26, 2011 – For Immediate Release

Contacts:
Susana Almanza, PODER 512-590-2111
Marion Mlotok, Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, 512-470-8878

Austin, TX Last week NRG Energy announced that they will halt further investment in two proposed South Texas Project nuclear reactors, a strong step in the right direction. However, protesters demanding crucial further steps took to the streets today, urging NRG to halt reactor licensing.

"NRG was right to protect the financial health of the utility by pulling out of investment in the $18.2 billion reactors," said Marion Mlotok, spokesperson for the SEED Coalition. "But it is crucial that NRG fully halt the licensing of the proposed reactors and withdraw their federal loan guarantee application, since approval would allow billions of taxpayer dollars to go toward building more nuclear reactors. Another company could come in and buy out the reactor project, which should instead be halted entirely. These reactors should not be built by NRG or any other company."

Reactor opponents have a strong legal case addressing the risks of co-locating multiple reactors at the same site and contend that NRG’s plan to deal with fires and explosions is inadequate. The groups recently wrote to the NRG Board, urging that the reactor license application and federal loan guarantee application be withdrawn and that the company stop pursuit of adding 20 years of operating life for existing aging reactors. STP Nuclear Operating Company estimates an $18.2 billion pricetag for two reactors. If the financially shaky project somehow moves forward, a loan default would fall on the shoulders of already burdened taxpayers.

"Nuclear power comes with significant health risks, since radioactive exposure is linked to cancer and birth defects. Radionuclides routinely released in nuclear reactor operations have been linked to developmental problems, birth defects, reproductive problems, cardiovascular disease, leukemia and other cancers," said Trish O’Day, a nurse and board member of Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility. "Epidemiological studies of children living near nuclear reactors show a positive association between leukemia and proximity to nuclear reactors. Pollutants from nuclear power such as tritium, which acts like water in the body, can enter fetuses through the placenta. Tritium is linked to cancer and genetic abnormalities."

"Due to health and safety concerns and the increasing risks that come as reactors age, NRG should halt re-licensing of the two existing South Texas Project reactors," said Susana Almanza, Director of PODER. "Re-licensing would allow another 20 more years of operation for the reactors, which are now set to retire in 2027 and 2028. The nuclear disaster in Japan is teaching the world lessons the hard way about the increased risks of aging reactors. Japan’s Fukushima’s Reactor No. 1, the oldest reactor at Daiichi site, had just been given a 10-year extension despite safety warnings a month before the March nuclear disaster." Reactor No. 1 exploded and has the most seriously damaged fuel rods, which may not be fully covered with water until July despite the pumping of six tons of water every hour.

"In 1993-1994 both South Texas Project 1 & 2 had year-long outages in order to bring them back to even basic safety levels, at a cost of roughly a billion dollars each," said Susan Dancer, Director of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, who lives only eight miles from the site. "There have been recent problems at the reactors as well, which are getting nothing but worse. Unit One is currently having an unplanned extended outage. The only safe path is to transition away from aging nuclear reactors." Dancer spoke in Houston at a protest being held in conjunction with the Austin event.

A Union of Concerned Scientists report notes that in 27 years following the Three Mile Island meltdown, "38 U.S. nuclear power reactors had to be shut down for at least one year while safety margins were restored to minimally acceptable levels…Safety restoration outages result from cumulative, systemic degradation of reactor components. A year-plus outage of this kind is not needed to fix damage caused by an accident or to replace or repair a major component, but to fix dozens or even hundreds of equipment problems that have accumulated over time." The protest was held on the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, a level 7 nuclear disaster, which some researchers now say cost 985,000 lives, mostly cancer related deaths. The ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is now also rated level 7. A 1982 NRC study (CRAC-2) found that 18,000 early deaths could result from an accident at the South Texas Project site.

###

No More Chernobyls, No More Fukushimas, No More Nuclear Reactors

Download this press release in pdf format for printing

Media Release
April 26, 2011 – For Immediate Release

Contacts:
Zac Trahan, 713-337-4192 Texas Campaign for the Environment
Karen Hadden, 512-797-8481 Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Susan Dancer, 979-479-0627, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy

Houston, TX Last week NRG Energy announced that they will halt further investment in two proposed South Texas Project nuclear reactors, a strong step in the right direction. However, protesters demanding crucial further steps took to the streets today prior to an NRG shareholder meeting.

"NRG was right to protect the financial health of the utility by pulling out of investment in the $18.2 billion reactors," said Karen Hadden, Director of the SEED Coalition. "But it is crucial that NRG fully halt the licensing of the proposed reactors and withdraw their federal loan guarantee application, since approval would allow billions of taxpayer dollars to go toward building more nuclear reactors. Another company could come in and buy out the reactor project, which should instead be halted entirely. These reactors should not be built by NRG or any other company."

Reactor opponents have a strong legal case addressing the risks of co-locating multiple reactors at the same site and contend that NRG’s plan to deal with fires and explosions is inadequate. The groups recently wrote to the NRG Board, urging that the reactor license application and federal loan guarantee application be withdrawn and that the company stop pursuit of adding 20 years of operating life for existing aging reactors. STP Nuclear Operating Company estimates an $18.2 billion pricetag for two reactors. If the financially shaky project somehow moves forward, a loan default would fall on the shoulders of already burdened taxpayers.

"Due to safety concerns and increasing risks that come as reactors age, NRG should halt relicensing of the two existing South Texas Project reactors," said Zac Trahan, Program Director for Texas Campaign for the Environment. Re-licensing would allow another 20 more years of operation for the reactors, which are now set to retire in 2027 and 2028. The nuclear disaster in Japan is teaching the world lessons the hard way about the increased risks of aging reactors. Japan’s Fukushima’s Reactor No. 1, the oldest reactor at Daiichi site, had just been given a 10-year extension despite safety warnings a month before the March nuclear disaster." Reactor No. 1 exploded and has the most seriously damaged fuel rods, which may not be fully covered with water until July despite the pumping of six tons of water every hour.

"In 1993-1994 both South Texas Project 1 & 2 had year-long outages in order to bring them back to even basic safety levels, at a cost of roughly a billion dollars each," said Susan Dancer, Director of the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy, who lives only eight miles from the site. "There have been recent problems at the reactors as well, which are getting nothing but worse. Unit One is currently having an unplanned extended outage. The only safe path is to transition away from aging nuclear reactors."

A Union of Concerned Scientists report notes that in 27 years following the Three Mile Island meltdown, "38 U.S. nuclear power reactors had to be shut down for at least one year while safety margins were restored to minimally acceptable levels…Safety restoration outages result from cumulative, systemic degradation of reactor components. A year-plus outage of this kind is not needed to fix damage caused by an accident or to replace or repair a major component, but to fix dozens or even hundreds of equipment problems that have accumulated over time."

The protest was held on the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, a level 7 nuclear disaster, which some researchers now say cost 985,000 lives, mostly cancer related deaths. The ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is now also rated level 7. A 1982 NRC study (CRAC-2) found that 18,000 early deaths could result from an accident at the South Texas Project site.

###

• Protest of NRG’s Nuclear Reactors – April 26, 2011

Apr. 21, 2011

Taro Koyano, Correspondent
Yomiuri Shimbun

NEW YORK–NRG Energy Inc., a leading U.S. utility, announced Tuesday that it would not spend any more money on a project it has been promoting with Toshiba Corp. to build new reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear power station.

The announcement effectively means that NRG has given up on plans to build two additional reactors at the plant. Toshiba had contracted to build the two reactors single-handedly, in what would have been a first for a Japanese nuclear plant maker.

NRG’s decision, which came as Japan has been struggling to deal with a nuclear crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture, will likely deal a great blow to Japan’s joint public-private sector efforts to increase nuclear power plant exports, industry sources said.

NRG and Toshiba jointly established a nuclear development company–Nuclear Innovation North America–in February 2008 to build two new reactors with a combined capacity of 2.7 million kilowatts at the plant, which has two reactors already.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. agreed last year to invest up to 155 million dollars (about 12.8 billion yen) in the Texas project.

But given the crisis at its Fukushima plant, which was crippled in the aftermath the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, TEPCO recently announced a plan to freeze foreign investments.

April 20, 2011

World Nuclear News

The future development of South Texas Project (STP) units 3 and 4 looks unlikely after majority shareholder NRG Energy announced that it will write down its investments so far in the project and make no further investment.

The project to construct two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) at STP is being developed by Nuclear Innovation North America (Nina) – jointly owned by NRG Energy and Toshiba. It had been considered among the leading new build projects in America, and was one of the few that had survived both the financial crisis and the new availability of cheap natural gas.

NRG noted that it does not have the unilateral right to cancel the project, only the right to terminate its participation in it. The company said, "while it will cooperate with and support its current partners and any prospective future partners in attempting to develop STP 3 and 4 successfully," it will not invest additional capital in the STP effort. NRG will write down its investment so far in STP units 3 and 4 and record a first-quarter 2011 pre-tax charge of some $481 million, for "the impairment of all of the net assets of Nina." The write down consists of $331 million of Nina net assets funded by NRG, together with $150 million of net investment contributed by Toshiba.

The company blamed the move on the continuing emergency at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan and the subsequent safety review by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that could lead to modified design requirements for the STP units. Although an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract for the project has already been awarded, it is impossible to finalize a price without the final design, said NRG. Furthermore, discussions about power purchasing agreements are "pointless" without a firm price for the new units. In addition, NRG said that planned Japanese financial participation in the project is "now significantly in doubt."

David Crane, chairman of Nina and CEO of NRG, said: "The tragic nuclear incident in Japan has introduced multiple uncertainties around new nuclear development in the United States which have had the effect of dramatically reducing the probability that STP 3 and 4 can be successfully developed in a timely fashion."

He added, "We continue to believe both in the absolute necessity of a US nuclear renaissance and that STP 3 and 4 is the best new nuclear development project in the country bar none. However, the extraordinary challenges facing US nuclear development in the present circumstance and the very considerable financial resources expended by NRG on the project over the past five years make it impossible for us to justify to our shareholders any further financial participation in the development of the STP project."

Last month, Nina announced that development of the new STP units had been slowed in response to regulatory uncertainty following recent events at Fukushima Daiichi. At that time, the company said that it was reducing the scope of development of the units "to allow time for the US NRC and other nuclear stakeholders to assess the lessons that can be learned from the events in Japan." For the time being, it had said, work related to development of the two new units would be limited to licensing and securing a federal loan guarantee for the project.

Nina will continue work on securing a combined construction and operating licence (COL) from the NRC and on obtaining a loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy, as these "two assets are absolutely essential to the success of any future project development." It noted that Toshiba will be responsible for funding ongoing costs to continue the licensing process. NRG said that it expects to incur one-time costs, related to a contribution to Nina, of up to $20 million.

Toshiba received a 12% stake in Nina, in return for a $300 million investment over six years. Half of this investment is to support the proposed new ABWRs at STP through Nina Investments Holdings. The other half is for new ABWR projects in North America with other potential partners. Nina holds a 92.4% stake in the project to build STP Units 3 and 4, with the remaining 7.6% held by CPS Energy (which owns 40% of the existing STP units). The project had originally been a 50-50 venture between Nina and CPS, but CPS decided to withdraw from the project altogether. However, in February 2010 an agreement was reached under which CPS would retain a small stake. CPS recently announced that it was indefinitely suspending all discussions with NRG regarding a power purchase agreement for electricity from the planned new STP units.

In May 2010, Japanese utility Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) – owner of the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant – agreed to invest $155 million for a 9% stake in the project to construct the new STP units, with an option to later increase this stake to some 18% for an additional $125 million within about one year. Tepco has been providing technical consulting services to the project since March 2007. The extent of the company’s future involvement in the STP project is uncertain.

The South Texas Project currently consists of two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which together produce some 2700 MWe. The reactors were brought online in August 1988 and June 1989. The facility is operated by STPNOC and owned by NRG Texas (44%), CPS Energy (40%) and Austin Energy (16%).

Although the COL for STP is not anticipated until 2012, an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract for the project has been awarded to a consortium of the Shaw Group and Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation, and an order for one of the reactor pressure vessels has already been placed with Japanese engineering company IHI. Construction of the two new ABWRs at STP was expected to begin next year, with the first 1358 MWe unit coming online in 2016 and the second in 2017.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News