Nuclear Plants for Houston - First New US Nuclear Plants in 20 years

[mhaze]

South Texas gets two more reactors. The first built in the US in more than 20 years and they go to Bay City (Houston, Texas).

This time - unlike last time - we'll be ready for all the Greenpeace, wimps, liberals, and their shill attorneys, who would like to cause trouble and delays in the project.

This'll probably put Texas ahead of California in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without all the misery of European (or now California) style behavior control, taxation, penalties and wanna-be-Kyoto silliiness.

Joe the Construction worker is on the job. Him and his buddies in their pickup trucks go out and build these things. Instead of sitting around and whining about who is and isn't carbon neutral.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5058870.html

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-18939257.htm

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446c3a1ecb2970.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7768)

[BlackKat]

This time - unlike last time - we'll be ready for all the Greenpeace, wimps, liberals, and their shill attorneys, who would like to cause trouble and delays in the project.

Actually there are many liberals who prefer reactors over alternate energy plants that are either dirtier, or not effective enough. I don't know what you mean by "ready". Is that some sort of redneck euphimism for violence? How very distasteful.


This'll probably put Texas ahead of California in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without all the misery of European (or now California) style behavior control, taxation, penalties and wanna-be-Kyoto silliiness.

Not until Texans scrap all those pick up trucks.
Europeans are fairly happier than most Americans. I would be too if I got 20-30 minimum days of mandatory-by-law, paid vacation a year.
And what's wrong with Kyoto? Better to do something about human-induced global warming than nothing.


Joe the Construction worker is on the job. Him and his buddies in their pickup trucks go out and build these things. Instead of sitting around and whining about who is and isn't carbon neutral.


Actually he's more likely to be named Jose (not that there's anything wrong with that). And the only reason anyone builds these things is not some sort of bucollic manly man hands on can do something attitutude. It's to get some rich energy or construction investors even more money.

Frankly your derisive attitude (as it comes across in this post) is rather abrassive. Instead of acting combative about an issue (before anyone has even contradicted you even) you should try to be more positive.

But I am glad that there are some newer reactors being built rather than more coal or oil plants. I only hope they're not built in the same slipshod manner most big contract jobs are done here in the U.S. Bechtel's Big Dig ceiling panels and leaks and overruns come to mind.

[mhaze]

Actually there are many liberals who prefer reactors over alternate energy plants that are either dirtier, or not effective enough. I don't know what you mean by "ready". Is that some sort of redneck euphimism for violence? How very distasteful.

If I was a bit unclear I apologize.

No, quite to my dislike, these days the conflict is in federal courts. And on the surface, the arguments are about snail darters or little worms whose rights have been infringed upon.

Read my statement again please.we'll be ready for all the Greenpeace, wimps, liberals, and their shill attorneys, who would like to cause trouble and delays in the project.

Obviously, I am addressing the liberals who would like to cause trouble and delays. And the "we" includes quite a few liberals who have wised up on the need for and benefits of nuclear power. So we'll see how many of them there really are - my guess off hand is A LOT.


Not until Texans scrap all those pick up trucks.
And what's wrong with Kyoto? Better to do something about human-induced global warming than nothing.
Actually, if all of Texas scrapped all the pickups and replaced them with Prius hybrids, that'd be a small fraction of the savings on greenhouse gas emissions produced by just one nuclear plant - here we are talking two large facilities. You are just plain wrong on that one, sorry.

Kyoto. Show me the numbers on the improvements in emissions and the costs. Or if you like, I can show them to you. (No, it's not better to do something about hypothesized "human-induced global warming" than nothing.)


Actually he's more likely to be named Jose (not that there's anything wrong with that).
We have here a forum with an international audience. Jose and our mixed cultures in various trades and occupations are not quite understandable to them is it? Ethnicity is not relevant to the issue, (and for your information, Spanish was here hundreds of years before English and everything, everybody is pretty much bilingual).




Frankly your derisive attitude (as it comes across in this post) is rather abrassive. Instead of acting combative about an issue (before anyone has even contradicted you even) you should try to be more positive.
Wronger than wrong. Serious opponents exist.


But I am glad that there are some newer reactors being built rather than more coal or oil plants. I only hope they're not built in the same slipshod manner most big contract jobs are done here in the U.S. Bechtel's Big Dig ceiling panels and leaks and overruns come to mind.Only Boston could produce the Big Dig.:D

Think it over. These nuclear plants are basically a test case. Can they be built? How long will the sham legal delays take? What are the changed attitudes of the community regarding nuclear power? The eroded base of support in the anti-nuclear arena, how weak or strong exactly is it? How well funded are the opponents?

So I guess we are back to basics. Guys with pickup trucks can build big nuclear plants that put a huge dent in that Carbon Emissions "Problem".

Way more so than scrapping all their pickup trucks.

More than Kyoto - no, that's ridiculous, let's not even put it in the list.

More than "behavior changes", also known as "making everyone miserable"

More than a couple of Compact Flourescent Bulbs bunches of people say we need to buy or feel real guilty.

[kellyb]

I'm slightly leftward leaning, and totally pro-nuclear for the time being. I'd like to see the whole country convert to as much nuclear as possible. Ideally, nuclear plants sending energy to stations powering batteries for electric cars, so we can cut ties with the middle east for a long, long time.

[BlackKat]

...
Actually, if all of Texas scrapped all the pickups and replaced them with Prius hybrids, that'd be a small fraction of the savings on greenhouse gas emissions produced by just one nuclear plant - here we are talking two large facilities. You are just plain wrong on that one, sorry.


What if Texas did both, expanding nuclear power and driving better vehicles?
Does not have to be a hybrid to be better. Just about anything on the road besides vans and old school station wagons get better MPG (and look better to boot) and do not contribute as much to road congestion.


Kyoto. Show me the numbers on the improvements in emissions and the costs. Or if you like, I can show them to you. (No, it's not better to do something about hypothesized "human-induced global warming" than nothing.)


Kyoto is as much about economics as it is about emissions reductions. But it is also highly symbolic. Like the U.N. it does not always function as intended but appearances are almost as important as results in politics. Sometimes it can be better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

I'll leave your argument that humans play no role in global warming for other threads.


We have here a forum with an international audience. Jose and our mixed cultures in various trades and occupations are not quite understandable to them is it? Ethnicity is not relevant to the issue, (and for your information, Spanish was here hundreds of years before English and everything, everybody is pretty much bilingual).


I apologize I brought it up. It did sound to me as your reference, "Joe the Construction worker is on the job. Him and his buddies in their pickup trucks", seemed like a euphemism for a bunch of rather white people, honkeys as it were. Sorry if I read too much into your depiction of certain Texans.


Only Boston could produce the Big Dig.:D


Large construction projects with cost over runs and shoddy workmanship occur all across what is largely a flawed system of subcontract bidding.


Think it over. These nuclear plants are basically a test case. Can they be built? How long will the sham legal delays take? What are the changed attitudes of the community regarding nuclear power? The eroded base of support in the anti-nuclear arena, how weak or strong exactly is it? How well funded are the opponents?


I think the biggest thing being tested here is can you get enough of a return from their operation to counter the huge startup and construction costs associated with building new nuclear plants. The reason utilities have been reluctant to build new plants is due more to financial considerations than anything else. Once they're up and running they can rake in the money... but getting them to that stage requires so much more investment than fossil fuel plants.


More than "behavior changes", also known as "making everyone miserable"

More than a couple of Compact Flourescent Bulbs bunches of people say we need to buy or feel real guilty.

What behavior changes? Who's miserable? You need to explain to me how trying to reduce carbon emissions has made people miserable because I guess I just don't see the misery.

Actually those bulbs are great. They last years, they are nice and bright, and they make your electric bill smaller (if only fractionally). They pretty much pay for themselves within months and were free as promotions from many electric companies when they first rolled out. They sure don't make me feel miserable.

[kellyb]

Actually those bulbs are great. They last years, they are nice and bright, and they make your electric bill smaller (if only fractionally). They pretty much pay for themselves within months and were free as promotions from many electric companies when they first rolled out. They sure don't make me feel miserable.
They even look like "regular light" now, too.
Several years ago there were still kind of fugly looking...

[Normal Dude]

I am looking forward to this and watching closely. Totally pro-nuclear here.

[SezMe]

mhaze, I'd be more willing to consider nuclear power as a component in our mix of energy sources if it wasn't for the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act).

This act dumps liability for damages due to nuclear power on to the USA taxpayer. If nuclear power is such a good deal, why does it need the protection of the United States government?

This question is particularly relevant since the proponents of nuclear power tend to be conservatives who eschew the government's involvement in the marketplace yet overwhelmingly supported this Act which overturned market (risk) forces.

[BlackKat]

The one thing I do worry about is the state of some of the older plants in the country. But all in all I prefer nuclear power, when compared to the alternatives. I don't worry much about a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island event. I am worried about this kind of event and the attempted cover ups and downplaying by the plant operators:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2096238.ece

But the Price Anderson Act has got to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

I don't see why nuclear power plants can not subscribe to the same liability rules that other types of plants do. I don't really like subsidizing a highly profitable business with tax dollars when they're more than capable of paying their own insurance bills. Supporters of the act have argued that the liability would dissuade utilities from investing in nuclear power plants. But I would counter that you can't expect to make long term profits without paying for the capital yourself. I certainly wouldn't expect the government to contribute to my 401k.

I think companies like Exelon and Dominion are doing quite well on their own and don't need my help.

Addendum: Heh. SezMe and I posted almost the same thing about Price-Anderson nigh simultaneously.

[SezMe]

Addendum: Heh. SezMe and I posted almost the same thing about Price-Anderson nigh simultaneously.
Great minds - same gutter. You know the drill. :) :)

[kellyb]

Or we could just create an American version of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France

[BlackKat]

I'd like to see all our utilities 'Ma Bell'ed... but alas once the horse is out of the gate...

[Rob Lister]

But I am glad that there are some newer reactors being built rather than more coal or oil plants. I only hope they're not built in the same slipshod manner most big contract jobs are done here in the U.S. Bechtel's Big Dig ceiling panels and leaks and overruns come to mind.

Apples and oranges really. The Big Dig was a government run pork project. This is a privately run capital project.

That's not to say that certain lesser-quality sub-contractors won't be hired here and there for political reasons but most will be strictly best-value.

[Hindmost]

South Texas gets two more reactors. The first built in the US in more than 20 years and they go to Bay City (Houston, Texas).

This time - unlike last time - we'll be ready for all the Greenpeace, wimps, liberals, and their shill attorneys, who would like to cause trouble and delays in the project.

This'll probably put Texas ahead of California in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without all the misery of European (or now California) style behavior control, taxation, penalties and wanna-be-Kyoto silliiness.

Joe the Construction worker is on the job. Him and his buddies in their pickup trucks go out and build these things. Instead of sitting around and whining about who is and isn't carbon neutral.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5058870.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5058870.html)

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-18939257.htm (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-18939257.htm)




Neither conservatives nor liberals as groups have supported nuclear power over the past 30 years. Due to ignorance of the politicians and the general public, the fear of nuclear power has remained an issue--and it will this time too if the government doesn't support the licensing process properly.

And conservative deregulation of the electric power industry isn't really panning out very well.

glenn (slightly liberal and pro nuclear)

By the way, the construction on the original STP was one of the worst managed in US history. 20 years to get them running...had to fire the original AE etc.

[Rob Lister]

Neither conservatives nor liberals as groups have supported nuclear power over the past 30 years....

That's pretty much true, even though it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. A Pew poll (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/8/both-reds-and-blues-go-green-on-energy) indicates support as follows

Also, just 44% of Americans support the idea of promoting nuclear power to address the country's energy needs, while 49% are opposed. Most Democrats oppose these proposals and most Republicans favor them, but the parties themselves are hardly unified. For example, while roughly four-in-ten Democrats favor promoting nuclear power, an equal number of Republicans oppose the idea.

I still would wonder about the strength of republican opposition v. that of democrats.

I suppose the conventional wisdom stems from the fact that all the vocal opposition comes from historically liberal groups, such as those mentioned in the opening post.

[mhaze]

The one thing I do worry about is the state of some of the older plants in the country. But all in all I prefer nuclear power, when compared to the alternatives. I don't worry much about a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island event. I am worried about this kind of event and the attempted cover ups and downplaying by the plant operators:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2096238.ece


A reactor right on an earthquake fault line? Sheeessshh....


But the Price Anderson Act has got to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

I don't see why nuclear power plants can not subscribe to the same liability rules that other types of plants do. I don't really like subsidizing a highly profitable business with tax dollars when they're more than capable of paying their own insurance bills. Supporters of the act have argued that the liability would dissuade utilities from investing in nuclear power plants. But I would counter that you can't expect to make long term profits without paying for the capital yourself. I certainly wouldn't expect the government to contribute to my 401k.

I think companies like Exelon and Dominion are doing quite well on their own and don't need my help.

Addendum: Heh. SezMe and I posted almost the same thing about Price-Anderson nigh simultaneously.Reading the first two pages out of your reference on the Price Anderson Act, what I saw here was a scheme roughly similar to (a) state "pools" that allow high risk drivers to continue to get insurance but at higher rates (b) the federal underwriting of the yuppie home mortgage market.

I'm all for a free market. You don't mind if we do away with these too right?:D

Seriously, we've seen one response in this thread that suggested that power plants would do better if socialized, and several that thought they were great, but should be privately insured. I'm not sure the underwriting of risk isn't at times properly a government function. Have to think about that a bit. One thing that comes to mind is although on the surface it might appear to cause Exxon to shoulder their own burden, actually just because the can and would do that, they might become dispproportionally the main player in this field, little guys would be squeezed out and forget start ups. But that's just a guess.

On Kyoto, BlackKcat, I think the last time I saw a number it was $60B in costs to date to the participants and truly laughable "reductions in emissions". They were reductions that went the other way. Around here we call those "increases in emissions". So how about this: No Kyoto, but take the same $60B and offer it in parcels of some $600M USD to any municipality or company or joint public private partnership that wants to build a nuclear plant. $600M essentially would be 20% seed money or the upfront cash for a $4-5B nuclear plant. That gets you 100 new reactors installed at the cost (to date) of Kyoto.

Want to take a guess on how that hypothetical would impact the Kyoto nations in achieving their desired goals according to Kyoto?

[Rob Lister]

Why not leave GW and Kyoto out of this thread. While they are tangentially related to nuclear power, mixing them will result in an incoherent thread.

[mhaze]

What if Texas did both, expanding nuclear power and driving better vehicles?

Does not have to be a hybrid to be better. Just about anything on the road besides vans and old school station wagons get better MPG (and look better to boot) and do not contribute as much to road congestion.


Well, note that my defense of pickup trucks does not include SUVs.:)

Pickup trucks actually have a bed that moves things around - oftentimes, they are things that the people with nice little Prius (soon, Smartcars) need moved or built. Not the same as the generic "gas guzzler issue".

Of course, California does not see it that way and imposes a special tax on all pickup trucks on the presumption that they are "commercial vehicles", raking in about 400-500M per year by doing this and affecting some 4.5M non-commercial owners of pickup trucks.

The really outstanding thing fixing to happen in automotives is the "A123" lithium ion battery. Anyone thinking about a hybrid might want to hold off 2-5 years. These probably would actually make a plug in electric a very nice car. There is an electric sports car with estimated 0-60 in 4 seconds being built that uses these batteries. Worth googling.

Not trying to move the thread away from the subject of nuclear plants, just thought this was worth explaining.

[Hindmost]

That's pretty much true, even though it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. A Pew poll (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/8/both-reds-and-blues-go-green-on-energy) indicates support as follows



I still would wonder about the strength of republican opposition v. that of democrats.

I suppose the conventional wisdom stems from the fact that all the vocal opposition comes from historically liberal groups, such as those mentioned in the opening post.

I would say the vocal opposition does come from "liberal" groups, but conservatives really haven't challenged them on the nuclear power issue. (Other issues, yes, such as drilling in ANWR) Since so many US people are opposed to nuke plants, both groups are bowing to their constituents--in general. I would expect conservatives to be more supportive in the poll. It will be interesting see what happens in the next few years. We certainly need to educate the public--as was done in France at the outset of their program.

glenn

[mhaze]

Why not leave GW and Kyoto out of this thread. While they are tangentially related to nuclear power, mixing them will result in an incoherent thread.

Agreed.

[BlackKat]

Agree. Saving Kyoto talk for one of the many GW threads.

I think if you look at Frances "socialized" power grid you will find it liberally studded with nuclear power plants.

This is in part because the government does not have to worry about capital vs. profits (although on long terms just about all power plants turn profits). The government is much more able to invest in infrastructure than private industry. Whether they do it better all the time is quite arguable. But the fact that they can do it without as much balking you see in industry is impressive.

But you can't have it both ways (or you can but you get a mess like Amtrak). If it's government funded it needs to be heavily regulated and heavy subsidies should result in heavy bill cuts for the consumers (with profit being secondary or lower in priority).

If it's privately funded it still needs to be heavily regulated because without regulation the industry is left to themselves to use competition pricing. The problem there arises when the competing industry players connive to fix pricing. This is not just a problem in utilities, but in other industries as well: automotive, insurance, OPEC, cellular providers, etc.

I can tell you that my electric bill has gone up all out of proportion with inflation since the industry was deregulated... despite the addition of two reactors in the 80s and 90s, and we still have only one option for power... so the competition factors in where?

[mhaze]

Agree. Saving Kyoto talk for one of the many GW threads.

I think if you look at Frances "socialized" power grid you will find it liberally studded with nuclear power plants.

This is in part because the government does not have to worry about capital vs. profits (although on long terms just about all power plants turn profits). The government is much more able to invest in infrastructure than private industry. Whether they do it better all the time is quite arguable. But the fact that they can do it without as much balking you see in industry is impressive.

But you can't have it both ways (or you can but you get a mess like Amtrak). If it's government funded it needs to be heavily regulated and heavy subsidies should result in heavy bill cuts for the consumers (with profit being secondary or lower in priority).

If it's privately funded it still needs to be heavily regulated because without regulation the industry is left to themselves to use competition pricing. The problem there arises when the competing industry players connive to fix pricing. This is not just a problem in utilities, but in other industries as well: automotive, insurance, OPEC, cellular providers, etc.

I can tell you that my electric bill has gone up all out of proportion with inflation since the industry was deregulated... despite the addition of two reactors in the 80s and 90s, and we still have only one option for power... so the competition factors in where?

Most studies I have seen showed that nuclear power, including plant amortization and spent fuel disposal, was cheaper than fossil fuel plants. Numerous cities offer an option in utilities for you to "buy green" where you essentially pay more and supposedly get power from the windmills. Of course, actually all the power is in the same bucket, but why couldn't this be used in reverse? On the utility bill, "buy nuclear" and you SAVE two to three cents per kwH?

I am no doubt in a dreamland here....but hey, consumers would absolutely love that.

[Rob Lister]

I can tell you that my electric bill has gone up all out of proportion with inflation since the industry was deregulated... despite the addition of two reactors in the 80s and 90s, and we still have only one option for power... so the competition factors in where?

Who is the "we" to which you refer? Typically, a government entity (city/state/county) would actually make the purchase decision.

[Rob Lister]

Most studies I have seen showed that nuclear power, including plant amortization and spent fuel disposal, was cheaper than fossil fuel plants.


NEI suggests it is on par with coal. Though I suspect a majority of the cost for nuclear has political rather than pragmatic roots -- there's a large degree of overkill in terms of safety.

[GT/CS]

Houston's weather is rather extreme so these nuclear power plants will need to withstand tornadoes and catagory 5 hurricanes.

[mhaze]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

From looking at this issue a while back I recall the main variable in life cycle cost estimates of nuclear were the discount rates; eg, the current impact of long term costs.

Amazingly, today (unlike 20 years ago when the last plant was built) there are instantly available over the internet and at my computer or yours, all of these technical and cost studies.

So it's reasonable to assume a far, far more informed public this time around.

I'd still like to have a discount for checking off "BUY NUCLEAR".

[Rob Lister]

Another good reason to switch to nuclear is to greatly reduce radioactive pollutants; 100x that of a nuclear plant.

Interesting link
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[Rob Lister]

Houston's weather is rather extreme so these nuclear power plants will need to withstand tornadoes and catagory 5 hurricanes.

Indeed. And it's happened.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/1998/98-040aiii.html

[Hindmost]

Houston's weather is rather extreme so these nuclear power plants will need to withstand tornadoes and catagory 5 hurricanes.

Commercial nuclear plants have always been designed to withstand the most severe weather that can hit the plant. The non-nuke side is not built to the same standards and can sustain damage. It does not affect the plants ability to safely shutdown etc.

glenn

[rustytunes]

I think that it is indeed good news that the US is building reactors again. Good for the environment, good for the future, and good for the nuclear power industry in general.
I can't see in the reports what kind of reactors these will be - fast breeder?
Where is the fuel to be sourced from?
I dare say our Australian Government will use this to push their pro-nucear energy policy.

[Hindmost]

I think that it is indeed good news that the US is building reactors again. Good for the environment, good for the future, and good for the nuclear power industry in general.
I can't see in the reports what kind of reactors these will be - fast breeder?
Where is the fuel to be sourced from?
I dare say our Australian Government will use this to push their pro-nucear energy policy.

I would venture to say the plant will be next generation AP1000 Westinghouse (now Toshiba) light water reactors.

Interesting, the link below indicates plans to build a bunch of coal fired plants in Texas as well...sort of cancels some of the CO2 benefits from the nuke plant.

I wouldn't bet on these getting built just yet. The concept has to filter through all the politics.

glenn

http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/nuclear_power_plants.htm

[Rob Lister]

I would venture to say the plant will be next generation AP1000 Westinghouse (now Toshiba) light water reactors.



Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=124955&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1041170&highlight=), specifically.

Disappointing, but better than coal.

[Hindmost]

Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=124955&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1041170&highlight=), specifically.

Disappointing, but better than coal.

A bit of a surprise since Toshiba bought Westinghouse from BNFL recently...that's why I assumed the AP1000. Since GE has had ABWR experience with the Lungmen, I would think they would have the lead on BWR tech.

Obviously, I made a poor assumption...

glenn