Intelligent Discussion of News, Politics and Current Events
You are not logged in.
As I am pro-nuclear this is great news.
Dubfan do you know if Disney/Reedy Creek retains the option to build a plant w/o state approval?
Levy County
Levy County Nuclear Plants Get Green Light From State
By RUSSELL RAY | The Tampa Tribune
Published: July 15, 2008
Progress Energy Florida's plan to build two nuclear power plants in Levy County was approved today by state regulators.
The $14 billion project, which was approved unanimously by the Florida Public Service Commission, will lead to an estimated 3 percent to 4 percent increase in electric bills each year beginning in 2009 until 2018. Next year, the project will add $7.50 to the monthly electric bill of the average residential customer of Progress.
The project still needs approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The utility expects to file an application for an operating and construction permit with the NRC later this month.
Progress Energy Florida is Central Florida's largest power provider, serving nearly 1.7 million customers in 35 counties, including Pinellas, Polk and Pasco. .
The two-reactor project would be built about 10 miles north of the company's existing nuclear plant in Crystal River.
Reporter Russell Ray can be reached at (813) 259-7870 or rray@tampatrib.com.
Find this article at:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/15 … ight-state
Back in March FPL received like approval...
Florida Power & Light Company Says PSC Decision on Nuclear Power Units Represents Positive Step toward Securing Clean Energy Future in State
JUNO BEACH, Fla. -- The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) took a positive step toward securing the state's clean energy future with its approval today of plans to build two nuclear power units at Florida Power & Light Company's Turkey Point (NYSE:FPL) generating complex in Miami-Dade County, FPL President Armando Olivera said.
The PSC approved the additional nuclear plants and specifically agreed that FPL should proceed with making "reservation payments" on a key piece of equipment with long advance ordering requirements.
"This is a critical first step toward securing Florida's future with additional energy that is safe, reliable, cost-efficient and clean. Additional nuclear generation will help us achieve Gov. Crist's goal of reducing the carbon emissions that scientists have determined contribute to climate change, and will protect customers from supply disruptions and unpredictable prices that can result from being too dependent on a single fuel source," Olivera said.
FPL is pursuing the option of constructing two advanced-design nuclear plants at Turkey Point that would add between 2,200 and 3,000 megawatts. If built, the units are expected to go into service in the years 2018 and 2020. FPL has safely operated two existing nuclear plants at Turkey Point for 35 years.
FPL, which serves 4.5 million customers in 35 counties, must increase its electrical generation capacity by nearly 33 percent to meet projected growth in electricity demand between 2011 and 2020. The two advanced-design nuclear plants would generate enough power to supply the needs of more than 1 million residential customers.
If constructed, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, as the new units will be known, will also diversify FPL's fuel mix, which currently consists of 50 percent natural gas. Fuel diversity helps protect customers from price spikes that can result from being overly dependent on a single fuel source.
Over the long term, operating expenses for nuclear plants are projected to be much lower than expenses for fossil-fuel plants, despite higher initial investment costs. For example, between January 2000 and July 2007, FPL's existing nuclear units saved customers $8.7 billion in fuel costs compared to natural gas and oil.
Additional nuclear generation will also help Florida address global climate change. For example, the two proposed units will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 7 million tons per year relative to fossil fuel plants. Reducing carbon emissions by 7 million tons is the equivalent of removing nearly 1.2 million cars from the road, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
FPL and its parent company, FPL Group, have a long history of promoting clean energy and sound environmental practices. FPL Group is the nation's No. 1 producer of renewable energy from wind and solar. FPL operates the state's largest photovoltaic solar power facility and has the nation's No. 1 energy conservation program, according to U.S. Department of Energy data.
The PSC's decision today represents one step in a process that will take 10 years or more. Before FPL makes a final decision to build these nuclear units, it will be involved in wide-ranging discussions and consultations with local residents and governments and must obtain approvals from several state and federal agencies, including licensing approval and oversight by the federal government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under the Florida Power Plant Siting Act, the governor and cabinet must also provide approval.
For more information about FPL's nuclear power program, visit www.fpl.com, highlight Electricity & Our Environment and click on Nuclear Power Serves You.
Florida Power & Light Company is the principal subsidiary of FPL Group, Inc. (NYSE:FPL), nationally known as a high quality, efficient and customer-driven organization focused on energy-related products and services. With annual revenues of over $15 billion and a growing presence in 27 states, FPL Group is widely recognized as one of the country's premier power companies. Florida Power & Light Company serves 4.5 million customer accounts in Florida. FPL Energy, LLC, FPL Group's competitive energy subsidiary is a leader in producing electricity from clean and renewable fuels. Additional information is available on the Internet at www.FPL.com, www.FPLGroup.com and www.FPLEnergy.com.
Note to Editors: High-resolution logos and executive head shots are available for download at http://www.fpl.com/news/logos.shtml.
Last edited by Veritas (07-15-2008 10:13 PM)
Offline
Veritas wrote:
As I am pro-nuclear this is great news.
Dubfan do you know if Disney/Reedy Creek retains the option to build a plant w/o state approval?
I have no idea. They have all kinds of under the table agreements and exemptions though, so nothing would surprise me.
Agreed, btw ... this is good news.
Offline
dubfan wrote:
Agreed, btw ... this is good news.
Ditto. So long as FPL isn't secretly trying to build a nuclear arsenal, I can't help but see this as a good thing.
Offline
Pro Nuclear, here.
Offline
I'm for it as well. I guess that makes us IMBYs.
Offline
I'm a present employee of FPL (seabrook station for a summer internship). I definitely support nuclear power.
Last week I attended a seminar presented by GE. They were promoting two of their new reactor designs. They use less uranium, produce more power, and have significantly lower rad doses than the plants that came online 20 or so years ago. They are also modular and it was claimed that they could be brought from blueprint to operation in something like 36 months. (Seabrook took nearly 10 years) If GE can deliver these reactor systems as advertised (already 2 online in Japan), then it will help to make nuclear more appealing.
As an aside, FPL also recently got approval to build the world's largest photovoltaic array.
Offline
I'm pro-nuke.
If any of you have technical questions about nuclear power, the NRC, or what the national roadmap looks like, post them here. My father has worked in the industry (Babcock & Wilcox, then Framatome, now Areva) for almost 35yrs and is currently managing a new reactor design for a facility in Arkansas. Crystal River is a plant B&W was responsible for and I know he's been there many times. Heck, I lived in Middletown, PA for 9mo after the TMI accident, and in Toledo when he was working at Davis-Besse in Oak Harbor.
Offline
elliot wrote:
Heck, I lived in ...Toledo ....
I am so very sorry.
Online
zukiphile wrote:
elliot wrote:
Heck, I lived in ...Toledo ....
I am so very sorry.

Offline
zukiphile wrote:
elliot wrote:
Heck, I lived in ...Toledo ....
I am so very sorry.
+1
All of NW Ohio is a septic tank ditch (comes from being in contact with bitchigan).
Did one term at BGSU. The place sucked big time. Went from Apple computers in HS and they expected me to use punchcards at a university. I also had to deal with a roommate who was going to major in mortuary science -yuck.
Offline
Hey Elliot, a question for you then:
Couple weeks back I was on the Susquehana near Peach Bottom and took a cruise upriver by the plant.
For starters, the fish finder's thermometer said the water at the outlet run was 92 degrees (!!!), but the plant wasn't circulating water through its cooling facility. My friend's dad says its because the plant runs more efficiently that way, and can create more power, but it also drives the kw/hr rate down, too.
The other thing I was wondering, what is the large stack that runs up the middle of the plant? Like a massive smokestack that, though it emitted no smoke, was freaking huge.
Always gets me how low the high tension wires that go across the river are. The towers that hold them are 7-8 stories tall, but the cables drop to within 30 feet of the waterline...
Offline
Steve, can you point to what you're talking about in this pic (or another one)?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl= … h&z=16
are you saying the output was 92 degrees after not having been circulated (as in, you're implying it was heated in a different way)?
Offline
At the end of the spillway, where the water that has been circulated through the reactors, the temps were 90-92. Immediately outside of the "controlled" area. Further south down the river, it was in the low 80's. That water never freezes over because of the heat exchange.
However, the heat exchangers on the shore there, I think its three banks of them, seem to not be in use. From what I'm told, it uses more energy to run them and the various state/federal regulators don't require water to be circulated through them before returning to the river.
Offline
Ah, now I understand. Well, if the law says they don't have to cool the output then why would they? It does expend energy (lots of it) to run those heat exchangers and with a BWR reactor it isn't as important to have cold water going into the reactor than in a LWR or PWR reactor. The BWR design uses the reactor to create the steam so having hotter water flowing in actually increases efficiency, provided the water isn't so hot that the condensate from the turbines isn't dangerously hot (close to boiling).
Peach Bottom is a really old facility (1958... updated in 1973/4) and has two types of reactors onsite. The original two are Helium Cooled Reactors, which use graphite blocked and liquid He to cool the reactor rather than circulated water. This design was discontinued in the early 80s, but coincidentally is one of the ideas currently under review for Gen4 design approval.
Helium cooled graphite block reactor: 
The two newer reactors at Peach Bottom are Boiling Water reactors, where the core actually superheats the water to produce the steam that drives the turbines.
NRC wrote:
In a typical commercial boiling water reactor (1) the reactor core creates heat, (2) a steam-water mixture is produced when very pure water (reactor coolant) moves upward through the core absorbing heat, (3) the steam-water mixture leaves the top of the core and enters the two stages of moisture separation where water droplets are removed before the steam is allowed to enter the steam line, (4) the steam line directs the steam to the main turbine causing it to turn the turbine generator, which produces electricity. The unused steam is exhausted to the condenser where it is condensed into water. The resulting water is pumped out of the condenser with a series of pumps, reheated, and pumped back to the reactor vessel. The reactor's core contains fuel assemblies which are cooled by water, which is force-circulated by electrically powered pumps. Emergency cooling water is supplied by other pumps which can be powered by onsite diesel generators. Other safety systems, such as the containment cooling system, also need electric power.
Here's a BWR:
And another image that may be easier to decipher:
There aren't any new BWR reactors being built, and anything new is in the Gen3/Gen4 series of designs. Wikipedia actually has a decent overview. Here's the NRC site that describes the Gen4 designs.
Last edited by elliot (07-29-2008 03:36 PM)
Offline
Wow. Praise inbound.
The water up there on the pond (Susquehana), as I said, is always warm. The currents are pretty light, as well, making for some damned good fishing, too. Mostly because on the southern end, its dammed by the Conowingo Dam, and since the water returns at such a high temp from Peach Bottom. Relatively smooth water, warm, and the site of many fond memories. Well, sort of, I was mostly drunk. ![]()
Funny, though, the negative impression that surrounds nuke power in the US is actually its biggest adversary. Since no new plants have been built since Three Mile, our existing infrastructure is nearing its terminus. Without new plants coming online, the old ones are not only obsolete, but inefficient as well. But given the red tape to putting in new reactors, why bother?
Offline
New plants will start coming online in the next 10 years with approvals starting to flow in over the next 2-3yrs. Aside from the project plants, Areva & GE are both working hard on getting NRC approval for their various Gen IV reactor designs. My dad used to be the VP of simulation services for Framatome/Areva, which was a twofold responsibility: 1) design and build simulators for existing plants so the operators could more efficiently manage them, and 2) design and build simulators for Areva's new reactor designs to help them through the approval process.
Here's a list of new plants currently under consideration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa … actors.pdf
Offline
Regarding public opinion, you almost never hear about nuclear power during the election cycle because polls have repeatedly shown that no matter how much people bitch about it they really don't care that much... not nearly as much as about the high cost of other fuels.
Offline
elliot wrote:
Regarding public opinion, you almost never hear about nuclear power during the election cycle because polls have repeatedly shown that no matter how much people bitch about it they really don't care that much... not nearly as much as about the high cost of other fuels.
Shame that it is.
The fact remains that of the different types of power sources available (wind, solar, fossil fuels), nuclear seems to be the most efficient and cost effective way to generate, period. Yet, of course, nobody wants it in their backyard, and the approval process takes years and years to move through, making the execution of the "new" reactors mind-numbingly laborious. Sure, it costs millions to put online, but if the precedent exists that each reactor has a life of 30+ years, the payout is far better than fossil fuel generators. Especially given the notion that nuclear fuel isn't anywhere near as volatile as fossil is.
Offline
The funny thing about that is that the people complaining about a reactor in their backyard are the ones that don't already have one in their backyard. They are soooooo much less intrusive than a fossil fuel plant it's not even funny, and I've never heard anyone who does live near a reactor actually complain about its proximity. Having lived near the Davis-Besse plant outside of Toledo, in Middletown, PA next to TMI, and now in Cary, NC, which is adjacent to the Sharon-Harris plant in Apex, I don't know if I've ever heard someone complain. ... TMI is a bad example, of course, but until the accident everything was copacetic and it was completely unintrusive. Nuke plants make very good neighbors compared to coal, oil, or NG.
Offline