PDA

View Full Version : Utility to build nuclear plants



guiseppewv
10-27-2005, 03:26 PM
Utility to build nuclear plants
Westinghouse units would be first ordered in U.S. since '78
Thursday, October 27, 2005

By Jim McKay, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In a move that could end a long drought in the domestic construction of nuclear power plants, Duke Power yesterday said it was making plans to build two reactors designed by Monroeville-based Westinghouse Electric.

The news that Duke has chosen Westinghouse's newest reactor design, the AP1000, for possible construction in its service territory of North and South Carolina was greeted with excitement at the company's headquarters campus.

"This is very good news. It's a significant step,'' said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert, who noted that it was too early to speculate on local jobs. "It's hard to quantify [employment], but the people who developed and designed the AP1000 and who will continue to engineer it are all here in Monroeville."

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke has not yet placed an order or signed a contract for the reactors, but said it was preparing an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it will submit within 24 to 30 months. That application process alone can cost approximately $30 million to do.

If the regulatory process stays on schedule and Duke agrees to proceed with the project, construction could begin by 2010, Westinghouse President and Chief Executive Officer Steve Tritch said. Duke cited 2015 as a potential completion date.

Construction of the last new reactor in the United States was completed in 1996, and there have been no new nuclear plants ordered since 1978, a year before the accident at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg dealt a disastrous blow to the industry. Three Mile Island, the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear history, led to heightened regulatory oversight and sweeping changes in nuclear power plant operations.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are now 105 commercial nuclear power plants producing electricity in the United States, located at 65 sites in 31 states. Together they supply about 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

Orders for Westinghouse-designed plants would have economic benefit for Pittsburgh since the company uses local vendors including Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, which designs and builds sophisticated Ovation-brand control and software systems for power plants.

"It would be really good news for us,'' said Robert L. Yeager, president of the Emerson control unit at the RIDC park in O'Hara. "We have been working with Westinghouse for quite a while on the plant computer design for the AP1000. Obviously, the more AP1000s they sell, the more Ovation technology we deliver. The bottom line is it's great for us."

The AP1000 technology, which is capable of generating about 1,100 megawatts of electricity, is the first of the latest generation of advanced light water nuclear reactors to receive design approval from the NRC. None of Westinghouse's competitors are that far along in the licensing process. The previous generation, dubbed Generation III by the NRC, was developed in the 1990s

Brew Barron, Duke Power's chief nuclear officer, said the advanced stage of the Westinghouse licensing process gave it an edge over competing designs from General Electric and France's Areva Group, the two main competitors to Westinghouse around the world. GE's latest design is a 1,500 megawatt Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR).

It also helped Westinghouse that two existing Duke-operated nuclear stations, the McGuire and Catawba plants, already use the pressurized water reactor technology that is the basis of the AP1000, which is described as passive gravity-aided technology that cuts down on the quantity of pumps, valves, wiring and piping used by existing nuclear plants.

"All three of the designs are good reactors. They would run faithfully and reliably,'' Mr. Barron said. "Because of our extensive experience with Westinghouse ... we are very comfortable with being able to fold a new facility using the same technology into the operations of our current nuclear fleet."

Jay Apt, executive director of Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center and a distinguished professor in engineering and public policy, said the Duke announcement could give Westinghouse a boost in its bid to sell reactors to China.

China is reviewing bids for four nuclear plants, which would likely be built in twos and could cost $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion a pair to build. Westinghouse is among the leading bidders, and China anticipates building several more after the first four are under way.

"For Westinghouse, they must regard [this] as a very good vote of confidence in their new design," Mr. Apt, a former astronaut, said. "This is a chance of bolstering their opportunity."

The Shaw Group, based in Baton Rouge, said its nuclear services unit will join with Westinghouse to provide engineering support for Duke's licensing application to the NRC.

Shaw and Westinghouse are already working together, along with Mitsuibishi Heavy Industries of Japan, on the proposals to build four of the AP1000 reactors in China.

Duke, which provides electricity to more than 2 million customers in the Carolinas, said it must build new capacity to serve the 40,000 to 60,000 new customers it adds every year.

"We project strong growth in our base load demand over the next 10 to 15 years,'' Mr. Barron said.

Duke, which already operates three nuclear generating stations, eight coal-fired plants, 31 hydroelectric stations and numerous combustion turbine units, has yet to select a site for the new nuclear plants, but expects to do that by the end of the year. It is looking at some 14 locations in the Carolinas, some of which it already owns.

Mr. Barron said the company is also looking at other types of facilities including coal and combined-cycle facilities that could be used to meet its growing load demand between now and the construction of new nuclear facilities

The recently passed federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes numerous incentives intended to encourage the development of new nuclear plant capacity.

Mr. Barron, of Duke, said the incentives act did not drive the decision announced yesterday. He said the evaluation for the projects began a year ago before the Energy Policy Act was finalized .

"It's a good option for our customers. It's not dependant on the various aspects of the energy act," he said.

A consortium of eight U.S. utilities, under the banner of NuStart Energy Development, in September announced potential sites where one or more of its corporate members might put a new reactor. The potential projects involve both GE and Westinghouse designs.

One of those applications involves a site adjacent to NuStart member utility Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Miss. The GE reactor is the preferred technology for that project.

The Westinghouse design was picked for a second NuStart project, which is proposed for the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) unfinished Bellefonte plant in Scottsboro, Ala.

The NuStart industry group plans to submit license applications to the NRC for review in late 2007 and early 2008. The licenses could be issued as soon as 2010 following a two-to-three years review process.

"With NuStart's announcement of the two sites, a U.S. nuclear renaissance is clearly within reach," Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business, said at the time.

Separately from that NuStart project, Entergy said it will simultaneously develop an application to potentially build and operate a second GE designed reactor, this one adjacent to tis River Bend nuclear power plant near St. Francisville, La.


http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05300/595701.stm

This is a welcome change. Glad to see that the building of nuk-ler power plants has resumed. :)

will_dou
10-27-2005, 04:29 PM
man...that's just l..o..n..g..

:P

InfiniteNothing
10-27-2005, 04:37 PM
I'm glad too. I hope it is cutting edge technology.

guiseppewv
10-27-2005, 04:53 PM
I'm glad too. I hope it is cutting edge technology.


I think it is but I don't think it is the "breeder" type which, I think, is better.

InfiniteNothing
10-27-2005, 04:59 PM
Boo!

Kevster
10-27-2005, 05:16 PM
I think it is but I don't think it is the "breeder" type which, I think, is better.

:stupid:

It's not. For us to develop a fuel reprocessing system would first require a major change in our nuclear energy policy. We have 'ol Jimmy Carter to thank for that. :|

Houdini
10-27-2005, 05:33 PM
:stupid:

It's not. For us to develop a fuel reprocessing system would first require a major change in our nuclear energy policy. We have 'ol Jimmy Carter to thank for that. :|

Have there been many successful (non-core-melt-down) breeders used before?

Kevster
10-27-2005, 05:48 PM
Have there been many successful (non-core-melt-down) breeders used before?

Not in the United States, but other countries like France and Japan use breeder reactors extensively. France has literally decades of experience with them.

attgig
10-27-2005, 06:34 PM
boo against one of my company's competitor's. haha.

it's about time that we start doing something about upping nuclear power in this country.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh48468_2005-10-27_21-01-47_wen2709_newsml
duke's not the only one... =)

OC
10-27-2005, 06:55 PM
This is a welcome change. Glad to see that the building of nook-ya-ler power plants has resumed. :)
Fixed that for ya. :)

zippyjuan
10-27-2005, 09:08 PM
It is a tough call. Continue to burn fossile fuels and deplete them-possibly adding to global warming- or what to do with nuclear waste for 20,000 years?

LegendKiller
10-27-2005, 09:12 PM
It is a tough call. Continue to burn fossile fuels and deplete them-possibly adding to global warming- or what to do with nuclear waste for 20,000 years?


Nuclear waste isn't *huge* and won't kill the whole planet within a few hundred years. It is a much smaller problem.

The problem in the US is that we never built *one* plant. Every stinking plant was an experiment in built-type, cost, and standards. Once it is standardized and we build one type, it also becomes safer and less costly.

Add in breeders and you start getting pretty good at using your waste also.

Barring a major breakthrough in Fusion, fission is the way to go for energy.

Nija
10-27-2005, 11:25 PM
I'm cautiously-optimistic about this. I'd like to see more nuclear power so we can move away from fossil fuels.

Kevster
10-28-2005, 10:54 AM
I'm cautiously-optimistic about this. I'd like to see more nuclear power so we can move away from fossil fuels.

We've had a couple long thread discussions about this in the past, and if we are to effectively move away from fossil fuels in the future, light-water (and breeder) nuclear and solar/wind power are the way. Aside from meeting our electricity needs, they are also key to generating energy to make hydrogen, which really is the fuel of the future. Hydrogen is then used in fuel-cell vehicles and their only exhaust byproduct is water. Hydrogen is effectively being used as an energy conduit in this case.

Here is the California Fuel Cell Partnership website, a collaboration of auto manufacturers, energy companies, fuel cell technology companies, researchers, and government agencies. California is (again) leading the way: http://www.cafcp.org/

InfiniteNothing
10-28-2005, 11:16 AM
We've had a couple long thread discussions about this in the past, and if we are to effectively move away from fossil fuels in the future, light-water (and breeder) nuclear and solar/wind power are the way. Aside from meeting our electricity needs, they are also key to generating energy to make hydrogen, which really is the fuel of the future. Hydrogen is then used in fuel-cell vehicles and their only exhaust byproduct is water. Hydrogen is effectively being used as an energy conduit in this case.

Here is the California Fuel Cell Partnership website, a collaboration of auto manufacturers, energy companies, fuel cell technology companies, researchers, and government agencies. California is (again) leading the way: http://www.cafcp.org/

Yeah, as it turns out, hydrogen won't work. California is wasting money. There's a huge amount of thermodynamic inefficiency in compressing it it and transporting it. Related to that, the energy density is quite low. Not to mention the infrastructure and fuel cell costs.

On the other hand, electricity can be transported and stored in batteries for relatively low thermodynamic efficiency costs.

An idea on storing nuclear waste: Could we just throw it into the magma and let it sink to the core? Maybe just store it in lead cans and use it as space heaters ;)

guiseppewv
10-29-2005, 11:48 AM
Add in breeders and you start getting pretty good at using your waste also.



:stupid: We need to go the way of breeders.

dougadam
10-29-2005, 03:38 PM
I here science as figured out a way to re-use uranium.

ialsohaveadream
10-29-2005, 04:01 PM
:stupid: We need to go the way of breeders.
:heh: Ok, am I the only one who giggles seeing the word "breeder" thrown around so much in this thread? I await Ben's righteous indignation at the suggestion that "breeder is better". :)

Kevster
10-29-2005, 07:24 PM
For those interested in this topic, we had a very extensive discussion on this very topic about 7 months ago. Many good points were brought up and it is a very informative thread, especially for those people not familiar with nuclear power other than 'Three mile Island' and 'Chernobyl'.

The thread can be found here. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84501)

For those intrested in reading a truly balanced presentation on nuclear power, please look at this PBS Frontline website about their program: Nuclear Reaction - Why do Americans fear nuclear power? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/)