Exelon Nuclear at standstill
Company needs federal loan guarantee for proposed plant
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
26 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
A nuclear company plays the waiting game during a transition of power and an uncertain economy.
Throw into the mix a design change and need to reaffirm a water supply for a proposed project in Victoria County. Yet, Exelon Nuclear continues to position itself for future financial growth.
Exelon needs federal loan guarantees to back financing for a proposed nuclear plant near McFaddin in Victoria County. But with only $18.5 billion in guarantees available and $122 billion requested for 21 reactors, Exelon waits to see what a new administration under President Barack Obama will bring.
"Without a loan guarantee program, I wouldn't say it would never be built, but it wouldn't be built within this decade," Christoper Crane, president and chief operating officer, said during a meeting with the Advocate's editorial board on Friday.
More work needs to be done with the whole loan guarantee process, whereby money would be appropriated through Congress, he said. The company continues to seek support from U.S. legislators on the issues of energy and economic stimulus.
The acquisition of NRG, which owns 44 percent of the South Texas Project in Matagorda County, would give a combined company the financial strength to pursue future projects, which ultimately would be based on economics and regulatory permitting, Crane said.
While Exelon doesn't intend to cancel either the Victoria project or STP's proposed two-reactor expansion, an acquisition could affect the timeline of those projects, Crane said. The company needs to consider the debt it would take on in the current economic environment as well as demand for electric generation.
An economic recession could cut demand, but Exelon still needs to evaluate the kind of recession Texas might face. A severe one could move proposed projects back by a decade.
"We believe the health of the Texas economy is somewhat stronger than other parts of the country and it should rebound faster," Crane said.
Crane and other Exelon officials spent Thursday discussing these same issues with state leaders, including Lt. Gov. David Dewhurt. During that meeting, Crane relayed the need to conduct an independent study to evaluate the water supply for a plant in Victoria County after a Chicago protest and input from concerned ranchers.
Dewhurt expressed support of the company's decision.
"He's supportive of more nuclear power generation in Texas, but he understands the need for doing it in a responsible way," Rich Parsons, Dewhurt's press secretary, said.
Exelon wants to find a credible, independent source to conduct the study, which it would like to have complete by this spring, Crane said.
Texans for a Sound Energy Policy Alliance would scrutinize such a study as its own hydrologists found an adequate water supply lacking, director John Figer said.
"We're not going to take someone else's word for it," Figer said. "We just don't think there is enough water for the future."
Figer added he thinks it "absurd" to build nuclear plants in the current economic situation. He said the billions of dollars in federal guarantees should go toward researching how to make wind and solar power more viable.
Dale Fowler, president of Victoria Economic Development Corp., disagreed. He said if the water wasn't dedicated to an Exelon project or any other local project, cities like San Antonio would eventually get it.
For Victoria, he added, now is the best time to see a nuclear plant come to fruition.
"We've seen headlines recently that other industries in the area are making cutbacks in jobs," Fowler, who is also an advisory committee member for Nuclear Energy for Texans, said. "This helps our region stave off some of the economic woes that are hitting the rest of the nation."
MORE INFORMATION
Changing the proposed reactor design for the Victoria project wouldn't affect that project timeline, either, Christopher Crane, Exelon's chief operating officer, said. The company will announce at the end of February which reactor will replace the first pick ...
- SHOW ALL »
MORE INFORMATION
Changing the proposed reactor design for the Victoria project wouldn't affect that project timeline, either, Christopher Crane, Exelon's chief operating officer, said. The company will announce at the end of February which reactor will replace the first pick of the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.
Crane added that the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, the design for STP's expansion, was No. 2 on its original list.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
26 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
To N45BA - Are you really that stupid?
February 1, 2009 at 10:40 a.m.You said, "Yucca Mountain if you ever been in the area, is in the middle of no where. The area is largely uninhabitable by man/woman. No one in that area has received any harmful side effects from the waste stored there. When you talk about fault lines(seismic activity) or volcanic activity, there are many more serious effects from those events than the disturbance of Nuclear Waste material stored underground in an area no one lives in."
Honey, Yucca Mountain is a planned repository for storage of nuclear waste and is NOT, I repeat, NOT open yet. There is no waste being stored there. It is not licensed yet. Get it, it isn't open yet!
Talk about unsubstantiated. You are a fraud and you are ignorant! You read nothing, know nothing and have nothing of value to post here.
Shoo!
What's a nuclear c***?
January 28, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.I lived near the South Texas Project for many years, both before and after it was built and operational. While it certainly made many of us nervous to have a nuclear reactor so close - 8 miles - the plant has so far been safe and a boon to the economy. The cooling ponds grow the largest alligators I've ever seen but not mutant ones.
On the other hand, before the plant was built, we were woefully uninformed as to what happens to the spent fuel rods and I didn't like thinking that they would be driving those things thru Texas. They did, however, go to great lengths to inform the public about how the plant worked and safety measures in place.
I think, IMHO, that a little more information would go a long way towards calming fears in/around Victoria.
Personally, I would be comfortable knowing there was another nuclear plant nearby in Victoria but I would still like to know where that spent fuel is going and how safe it will be to store it.
January 28, 2009 at 10:06 a.m.WOW,
By all these facts, the Bay City area and half of France must be nothing but vast nuclear devastated areas.
One of Europe's main concern's about us back in the mid 80's is that we are not going nuclear power and we will go to war for oil.
January 27, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.mmmmmmmm
the nuclear power plant needs to be built so it can alleviate the crisis in the local job market! there's alot of people losing their job and more will be laid off soon!
January 27, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.N45BA,
I was through with this particular thread,,until you said that unsubstandiated statements did not Sit well with you. I wanted you to sit Well,,so I returned. Yucca Mountain by the way is in the middle of Somewhere,,,it's in Nevada,,,A State that is a part of the United States of America. Also I'm not sure Who's filling your head with statements about Nuclear being the best method for producing electricity. But where you get this information Has to be coming from top dogs out for "The Money". For they definitly are Not thinking about the enviroment. But who cares about the enviroment right?,,as long as your bank statement shows you have plenty of spending cash,,and Possibly enough cash for a trip to Las Vegas Nevada. And by the way,,I'm not the one out for a verbal arguement,,I've seen that in about 95% of your comments,,that You are the one looking for a verbal Fight. And Yes,,you may have the floor N45 in this section, for as I can see that theres No hope for those who only think of the Almighy Dollar. allfiredup,,,you try talking to this N,,,,,,I'm Done.
January 27, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.STAY AT A STANDSTILL FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE
WE DONT NEED YOU NUCLEAR C***
N45bA,
January 26, 2009 at 7:57 p.m.Your name doesnt sit well with me,,,so I may have mispelled,,nb45ba,,whatever. It is UNSUBTAINIATED...
Nb45.......I see that speaking with you is like speaking to a bump on a log. I have done my research on the Waste that a nuclear power plant produces. And None of what you have stated is Proven fact. You thinking about moving to Nevada?,,I hear its nice this time of year.In the US a permanent site Has been selected, at Yucca Mountain Nevada. While Yucca Mountain is near a Fault line, the Fault is BELIEVED TO BE INACTIVE. There are several VOLCANOES in the vicinity, Scientist BELIEVE they will not erupt in the next 10,000 years.The people of Nevada are opposed to the creation of a Nuclear Waste Repository, and they express it in MIMBY, Not In My Back Yard!. This is because that Although MOST evidence indicates that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage, NO ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT THE WASTE WILL NOT LEAK. I'm not quite sure of what type of work that You do, but in my line of work,ther is NO ROOM FOR ASSUMPTIONS. And by these so called scientist that say they (("BELIEVE")),,,,That,,NB is an ASSUMPTION. Are the scientist Not a bit Confused about the New Fault that has been located in Arkansas? And what are they saying about this issue NB?..".Major Disaster".? Sure thats what they're seeing,,,something they did Not expect to happen,,but Its going to,,and Much sooner than You think. I can see that what we have here is Technology VS's COMMON SENSE. You can get as Technical as you'd like,,but Mr Nb,,your not in control of what will happen. Can you make it rain,? we sure could use some. I really did get a Laugh out of you saying," UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENTS DON"T SIT WELL WITH ME". Sound Like a Big man,,,Lot of Worldy knowledge,,But Heavily Lacking In Common Sense. If you have found unsubstantiated statements here,,then you may just need to contact all of those who have created these Great Website for those wanting to know the TRUTH about Nuclear Waste. ((WHY CREATE SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT DESTROY!!!!!!!!!!!. Theres a Great Movie out that I think you may just enjoy,,,called Idiocracy....Just a thought,,,maybe you should rent it TODAY!....They water the grass with Gatorade. Did this comment meet up to your standards Nb45BA *(* ???
January 26, 2009 at 7:53 p.m.Listen N45whatever, I need not give You any information,,,its right there in your face and and you can read it too. You do Nothing but put down,,have something to say about Whatever Anyone says. Yes these are ALL PROVEN facts that I mentioned,,but I will Not waste my time on a critic like you. Another thing,,,I commented on the article,,,something that you seem Not to do,,,you comment on others comments. Enjoy yourself,,,and Enjoy the air you breath,,,,,for mr nd,,I'm not sticking around this one horse town. Sure we need money to survive,,but you make the Almighty Dollar seem like a damn Disease. End of comments for me on this article,,,when nb comes around,,its time to leave.
January 25, 2009 at 10:58 a.m.And finally....read http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/ener...
There is no specific mention of nuclear power. I don't believe there is enough money to subsidize building these expensive plants, to provide only 700 permanent jobs.
January 25, 2009 at 9:22 a.m.Also, read this story originally published in the VA on June 29, 2007. http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/nucle...
NUCLEAR WASTE CANNISTERS EXPLODE!!!
Your article says: The structural integrity of containers in use around the nation is already in question, he said. Weve got an eight-page fact sheet of incidents that have happened with dry cask storage over the last 20 years.
For instance, he said, a gas in a container at a plant in Virginia leaked through one of the cask walls. Kamps said although it was contained by a secondary wall, it still indicates there are problems.
Thats concerning because these things are supposed to last a hundred years or more, he said. In just 20 years or less, they had internal leaks.
He said there was an explosion involving a fully-loaded dry cask, followed three years later by another explosion. Theyre just taking major shortcuts on waste management, which is dangerous to do.
This is the dirty little secret the nuclear industry keeps pushing aside. The industry stresses high security and strict regulations to calm the public's fears. My concern is with plans for safe storage and/or disposal of the canisters...and the fact that those plans are non-existent. Storage exists and it is not safe. Safe disposal is only a dream.
Some important information links http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-s... from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission website, Nuclear Fuel Pool Capacity graph, and I quote All operating nuclear power reactors are storing used fuel under NRC license in spent fuel pools. Some operating nuclear reactors are using dry cask storage.
Look at the graph and see how fast the hour glass is emptying.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/fctsht... From the NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service) fact sheet, one of many foretells the future for radioactive waste storage.
INTERIM BECOMES DE FACTO PERMANENT WASTE STORAGE
General Electrics reprocessing facility in Morris, Illinois was built and opened in the
early 1970s but never operated due to major equipment failures and technical problems.
However, the 772 tons of high-level radioactive commercial waste stored underwater remain there to this day. Recently, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the facilitys original operating license for another 20 years, till 2022. Thus a proposed reprocessing facility has instead become a several-decades-long storage site for commercial high-level radioactive waste from reactors throughout several states.
THE FRENCH PROCESS
http://www.ipfmlibrary.org/rr04.pdf
May 14, 2008: A major new report on the French reprocessing program from the International Panel on Fissile Materials finds that it does not reduce volume of radioactive waste and would have to be half its current cost to be economically competitive with storage of the waste, thus undercutting the Bush administrations major arguments for reprocessing.
BUSHS GRAND PLAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (GNEP) or better known as JUMPING THE GUN http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/reproces...
March 31, 2008: New report slams President Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, findingamong other problems--that no economic cost-benefit analysis has been done, the technologies proposed do not exist, and the program would be too slow and expensive to address climate change. Report is from Institute for Policy Studies, Friends of the Earth, Government Accountability Project and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Particularly insightful is Page 28
Finding No. 6:
January 25, 2009 at 9:15 a.m.The administrations plan for GNEP would effectively and rashly lock the United States into decisions to deploy certain nuclear technologies and processes well before R&D is completed, demonstration projects are tested and operated and the chosen technologies and processes are shown to be feasible and cost-effective.
N45BA - please consult the Union of Concerned Scientists article on "Nuclear Power in a Warming World" for an indepth analysis of present day nuclear energy.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/n...
I think everyone needs to do a little more reading on the topic of "recycling spent nuclear fuel". Please go here
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSh...
Please note the mission and goals are for future development of advanced technologies.
Fifty years ago we were told scientists would find a solution to the problem of dealing with highly radioactive materials that remain lethal for thousands of years and so far the scientists have not solved that problem.
I also found this quite interesting. From a column by AGI/AIPG Geoscience & Public Policy Intern Timothy J. Donahue reprinted from the November 2006 issue of The Professional Geologist, a publication of the American Institute of Professional Geologists.
"According to the Energy Information Administration, even if several new nuclear power plants are built and all 103 of the older plants continue to operate, nuclear energy will only represent 15% of U.S. sources for electricity generation in 2030 because while the nuclear power supply will increase a small amount, the demand for energy will grow even faster. Thus although there is renewed interest in expanding nuclear power capacity in the U.S., the incentives in EPACT 2005 and the promises of GNEP are perhaps not enough to overcome a decrease in total nuclear capacity with a concomitant increase in fossil-fuel capacity. Currently, coalfired plants and natural gas-fired plants represent 50% and 20%, respectively of U.S. electricity generation and these percentages are expected to increase in the future. More drastic policy changes and probably significant federal investment may be needed to significantly boost U.S. nuclear power capacity."
This tells me we are not reducing the use of fossil fuels, only increasing the risk of future contamination by nuclear waste.
And read this..
http://www.counterpunch.org/alvarez05...
Finally, since I'm tired of doing this research on my Sunday off, I think this has more to do with people only seeing jobs for the Victoria area and to hell with whatever consequences may befall us. I think we owe it to our future generations to think this through and seek other avenues for energy and jobs.
There are cheaper, cleaner, alternative energy sources to be developed and that's what we should be focusing on.
January 25, 2009 at 8:54 a.m.Proveallthings, I could not agree with you more. My last child has 2 more years in High School and then I plan to move back to San Antonio. Give me traffic over radiation any day. I want to be as far away from that thing as possible. To the economic people, if I was a family looking to move, I would never choose a city near a nuclear power plant. I think the cancer /radiation issue is more than proven.
January 24, 2009 at 10:17 a.m.I know that many area residents do not approve of this nuclear plant being built in our area, and I know that many have done their best to Stop this from happening. But some Still think its a Good Idea, I'm supposing because they're thinking, Only of the jobs that it would create for local residents. But we Need to think futher into the future Before we let this happen. Nuclear power Is Not a one hundred percent clean source of power. Uranium Must be mined to fuel a Nuclear power plant. This process releases radiation into the enviroment. Nuclear power plants consistently release low levels of radiation into our enviroment. The Waste produced from Nuclear power plants IS RADIOACTIVE. The Waste Remains Radioactive for Hundreds of Thousands of years. The Waste Must be disposed of ina safe manner to avoid exposing the Radioactive material into the enviroment..BUT, We currently Do Not Have a Safe Way to deal with Nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear Waste REMAINS DANGEROUS for approxately,((((((( 240,000 YEARS))))))))). Scientific study has Proven that there is an Increase rate of CANCER in people who live NEAR Nuclear power plants. This is due to the long term exposure to the low levels of RADIATION Released from nuclear power plants. IS THIS WHAT WE WANT?. Here in South Texas the air we breath at the present time is'nt that safe. Why would We want it to become More of a health hazard?..Just to create more Job openings? THIS IS THE LAST THING WE NEED IN THIS AREA,,,OR ANY OTHER AREA AS FAR AS THAT GOES. I myself would Must rather see these so called scientist put there concentration more on Safer ways of creating power. Such as Parabolic Mirriors,,,,Wind Energy, Tidal energy. We have the sun,,the wind and the waves that we Could use to create energy, But the drawback is, is that it would not create as many Job openings. Which is more important,,In The Long Run. I am sure that there will be many comments following this one,,,from people who back the use of nuclear energy. But never will I be convinced that this is our Only alternative for creating Electricity.
January 24, 2009 at 10:06 a.m.And Remember. What are they going to do with the WASTE? Try talking to Christopher Crane,,and see what He has to say. Also salazaa, you do know what these bigshots do in times of emergency,,,(They Run), and leave it to US to decide what to do.
Good thing Victoria doesnt have to worry about a pile of nuclear waste while A nuclear company plays the waiting game during a transition of power and an uncertain economy.
We need to make sure this plant is built somewhere else unless Victoria is willing to place TAXPAYER money aside for a NUCLEAR EMERGENCY.
January 24, 2009 at 8:02 a.m.STAY AT A STANDSTILL!!!!!!!!!, THATS THE LAST THING WE NEED IN THIS AREA IS A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. HELLO VICTORIANS,,,,,TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO STUDY ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS,,,IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT? NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCES ALOT OF WASTE. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DO WITH THAT WASTE? JUST DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF A BIT UPSET ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS WASTE.
January 24, 2009 at 12:18 a.m.