Georgia Nuke Plant Expansion Still On Despite Fukushima

[wtmusic]

"The head of the Atlanta-based Southern Co. says plans for building a new nuclear plant in Georgia remain on track despite the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan.

Southern Co. CEO Thomas Fanning said Wednesday that the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan should not derail plans to build a new fleet of nuclear reactors. He made the remarks in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.

His firm is seeking permission to build two more nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro. If approved by federal regulators, Southern Co. could become the first to break ground on a new nuclear power plant in a generation.

Fanning criticized proposals that would further restrict emissions from coal-fired power plants."

http://www.star94.com/info2go/Story.aspx?ID=1401807

[Hosnon]

1. Relatively right down the road from me and I support it. nt.

[wtmusic]

2. It's interesting to me

that it seems most of the biggest critics of nuclear power have never lived near a nuclear power plant.

[stockholmer]

5. we all live close enough when it's all gone pete tong

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

[Hosnon]

6. Also live right down the road from SRS - basically where we make our atomic bombs.

Perhaps we're desensitized to nuclear issues, but I'm all for it. It's mind-blowing the number of new folks I've met who are getting paid nice salaries for this.

[kristopher]

11. The objections are far more broadbased than that.

This article from Nuclear Energy Industry Insider sums up well (and with pride) the solutions they've found at Vogtle to use as a blueprint for the revival of industry.

Industry Insight
Plant Vogtle: An industry blueprint in the making?
24 October 2010
Rebuilding nuclear energy units in the US is a mighy feat. In this edition we look at the progress of Southern Company's Plant Vogtle project in the US state of Georgia. Alison Ebbage finds out why a solid EPC contract and a Senate bill have had a lot to do with why this project could become a promising industry blueprint....
By Alison Ebbage
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/industry-insight/plant-vogtle-industry-blueprint-making

What you will find in that article is a plan that transfers all financial risks away from the investor and onto the public. All of it that is except perhaps 1/4 to 3%. It doesn't matter what happens, those who get all the money if they build it will lose nothing if they fail to build it; or fail to build it for the price they promised; or fail to build it within the time promised.

It was my understanding from the MIT report that the goal of this policy endeavor was to prove the economic viability of merchant plants. The promise was that with "cost sharing" (that is the term for transferred risk) by the Federal govt for the first couple or three reactors, they would be able to attract the capital needed without further help.

Is that what it sounds like the lesson the Nuclear Energy Industry Insider writer is taking away from the "cost sharing" that is underway?

Next we could discuss the way they have, by law, dramatically curtailed the rights of the judicial, legislative and most administrative authorities to act in the public's behalf. It reminds me a lot of the way the new governor of PA has structured his energy regulatory authority by making all legal and regulatory challenges go though his hand picked special regulator and then giving that special regulator the authority to over-rule anyone.

[jpak]

3. Fanning criticized proposals that would further restrict emissions from coal-fired power plants.

So pronucular doesn't mean anti-coal - but pro-coal.

Contrary to what we have been told.

yup

[txlibdem]

8. Nice try but.... FAIL

A few posters here on DU love to try to lump nuclear (a zero-carbon energy source) with coal (the worst and most polluting form of electrical generation ever). That connection only exists in the fevered minds of the anti-nuke crowd.

This Fanning guy is a Capitalist, and Capitalists only think of money, specifically of how to keep all of their money and use YOUR money to make themselves even richer. Of course he's against any rules that might cost him money. He'd also be against any rule that adversely affected his pocket book in any other way. Surprise there? Nope.

To say that two completely opposite industries are in bed together just because some energy companies use both is beyond belief. But, please continue to amuse the thinking world with your gyrations and continued fabrications. I get a chuckle out of these feeble attempts.

I guess next you'll come up with the theory that because there is a Huffines Dodge dealer *AND* a Huffines Kia dealer that Kia is secretly the same company as Dodge??? But wait... let me blow your mind! There's also a Huffines Chevy dealership!!! Wow! http://www.huffines.net/ There's the proof! It's right there!

It is to laugh.

[stockholmer]

4. new nuclear power plants are wrong on so many levels it is breathtaking,but the US, $$'s always rule

:thumbsdown:

[RC]

7. Over the life of the power plant, nuclear is the safest, cleanest and environmentally friendly.

This is comparing coal, oil and natural gas.

Wind and solar are not ready and will never be ready to supply power at levels compared to burning something or nuclear.

They have their places as fill in or stop gap, but they can't supply the heavy duty electricity over the long haul reliably, as can coal, oil, gas or nuclear.
Hydro can, but you need the terrain for it. And it has its own set of problems with land use, wild life and safety down stream.

[txlibdem]

10. I like the way you think. It's logical to follow the $$ so let's do just that.

But to compare the costs of (for example) one wind farm with intermittent output to a nuclear power plant that puts out many times the energy and does so 24/7/365 isn't properly comparing dollars to dollars. It's like comparing the whole pie to a tiny slice, "that pie costs $10 and I can get this slice for $2... that pie is too expensive!"

Wind wins hands down if you do not apply the same requirements on it that nuclear provides out of the box, 24/7/365 steady energy generation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital, general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=208
-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

But where in that analysis did it say anything about the cost of storage and the cost of the excess capacity that will be needed in order for wind (or solar for that matter) to become a 24/7/365 energy source. It compares the wind farms --when the wind is blowing. Well guess what? The wind isn't always there! And I think we can both agree that the sun goes away as well, at least once per day, right?

So a fair analysis of the cost of nuclear versus the cost of renewable energy has to include the needed excess capacity and storage. There is no other fair way to compare the two.

[FBaggins]

9. It's still "on track"... but the tracks don't run as straight as they did a few weeks ago.

Recent events will certainly cause a delay.