Tag Archives: Duke Energy

Harris nuke flaw “fixed” that wasn’t found for a year

Less than 500 miles from here in NC,
what else haven’t they found if


‘Duke Energy’s examination a year ago “was supposed to have found that problem then and fixed it”‘?
This was a ‘a quarter-inch spot the NRC and the company describe as a “flaw” in the reactor vessel head, which contains heat and pressure produced by the nuclear core’s energy.’
When a solar panel has a quarter-inch flaw, you get a tiny percentage less electricity,
not the risk of radiation leak or worse.
Would you rather have two more nukes at the same site, run by the same company that can’t run the one it’s got safely, or solar power instead?

Plus where is the advantage of baseload capacity when
Harris 1 has only been up 27.41% for the past month
(NRC data),
which is hardly better than
the approximately 20% sun hours per day
for solar power in North Carolina this time of year.
Given the low and continually-dropping cost of solar panels,
Duke could simply over-provision distributed
solar panels and get way more than
20% or 27.41% effective power, and get that on budget and on time.


Harris 1 7% last 27.41% for the month

Emery P. Dalesio wrote for AP yesterday,

Harris nuclear plant in U.S. is safe to restart after reactor problem found, Continue reading →

Renewable Portfolio Standards: GA, NC, and ALEC

Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) are being proposed
in Georgia and ALEC is trying to do away with them in North Carolina.
If ALEC doesn’t like them, there must be something good about RPS.
Let’s get on with real renewable energy in Georgia.



In Georgia,

HB 503,
sponsored by Karla Drenner, Carol Fullerton, Debbie Buckner, Scott
Holcomb, Spencer Frye, and Earnest Smith,
would create a Renewable Energy Credits Trading program as part of
renewable portfolio standards,
as Kyle wrote for Spencer Frye’s blog 10 March 2013,

Let the Sunshine In.
Unfortunately, HB 503 includes biomass as a renewable energy source.
Maybe they just mean landfill gas, which I consider a special case
since it’s being produced anyway, and since methane is worse as
a greenhouse gas than CO2, burning landfill gas makes some sense.
Nope, in

the actual bill, 46-3-71 (1):

‘Biomass material’ means organic matter, excluding fossil fuels and black liquor,
including agricultural crops, plants, trees, wood, wood wastes and residues, sawmill
waste, sawdust, wood chips, bark chips, and forest thinning, harvesting, or clearing
residues; wood waste from pallets or other wood demolition debris; peanut shells; cotton
plants; corn stalks; and plant matter, including aquatic plants, grasses, stalks, vegetation,
and residues, including hulls, shells, or cellulose containing fibers

The barn door in there is “harvesting”, which can mean whole trees,
but the rest isn’t much better.
We don’t need to be burning things that increase atmospheric CO2
and end up stripping our forests.
In

North Carolina they staretd with just tops and limbs and then tried to escalate
to whole trees.
We already
fought off the biomass boondoggle here in south Georgia;
let’s not have it encouraged statewide.
Especially when we have better solutions: solar and wind power.
HB 503 isn’t going to get passed this year, since it didn’t make
crossover day, so maybe its sponsors can clean up that biomass mess
before they submit it again.

Speaking of North Carolina,

Continue reading →

Already: Solar grid parity without subsidies in India and Italy

Solar power is going so well worldwide that Deutsche Bank has just
increased its projections for global demand,
noting that India and Italy have already in 2013 reached grid parity
without subsidies with other sources of energy,
and it expects the rest of the world to follow as early as 2014.
The big winner is rooftop solar.

Is Georgia paying attention?

Becky Beetz wrote for Global PV 26 February 2013,

Deutsche Bank: Sustainable solar market expected in 2014,



Buoyed by bullish demand forecasts, and increasing utilization rates
and pricing, Deutsche Bank forecasts a solar market transition from
subsidized to sustainable in 2014. Italy REC solar photovoltaic
plant

The German bank has raised its 2013 global solar demand forecast to
30 GW — representing a 20% year-on-year increase — on
the back of suggestions of strong demand in markets including India,
the U.S., China (around 7 to 10 GW), the U.K. (around 1 to 2 GW),
Germany and Italy (around 2 GW).

Rooftop installations are, in particular, expected to be a main
focus, says Deutsche Bank. A trend for projects being planned with
either “minimal/no incentives” has also been observed, despite the
belief that solar policy outlooks are improving, particularly in the
U.S., China and India, and “other emerging markets”.

More analysis by
Jeff Spross in ThinkProgress 3 March 2013,

Solar Report Stunner: Unsubsidized ‘Grid Parity Has Been Reached In India’, Italy–With More Countries Coming in 2014.

As Renew Economy also
points out, this is the third report in the past month

Continue reading →

Levy Co. FL nuke likely not to be built

Cost already sunk Kewaunee, Calvert Cliffs, Crystal River, and are gnawing
away at San Onofre: now it looks like new owner Duke is not
likely to build Progress Energy's Levy County, Florida reactor.
All that plus even in Georgia, even against all-powerful Georgia Power,
there's a reaction against the cost of the always-later always-more-expensive
new nukes at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah River.
A reaction that's getting written up in the Valdosta Daily Times.

In the VDT today from AP,

Some leaders souring on nuclear power costs.
I'm quoting from the abcNews version
because it includes the author's name, Ray Henry,
and the original date, 3 March 2013.
I added all the links and images.



As the cost of building a new nuclear plant soars, there are signs
of buyer's remorse.

The second-guessing from officials in Georgia and Florida is a sign
that maybe the nation is not quite ready for a nuclear renaissance.
On top of construction costs running much higher than expected, the
price of natural gas has plummeted, making it tough for nuclear
plants to compete in the energy market.

In Georgia last week, Southern Co. told regulators it needed to
raise its construction budget for Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia by
$737 million to $6.85 billion. At about the same time, a Georgia
lawmaker sought to penalize the company for going over budget,
announcing a proposal to cut into Southern Co.'s profits by trimming
some of the money its subsidiary Georgia Power makes.

And Southern Company and Georgia Power slipped the Plant Vogtle schedule
still more,

from 15 to 19 months late.

The legislation has a coalition of tea party, conservative and
consumer advocacy groups behind it, but faces a tough sale in the
Republican-controlled General Assembly. GOP Rep. Jeff Chapman found
just a single co-sponsor, Democratic Rep. Karla Drenner.



That's

HB 267: Financing costs; construction of nuclear generating plant.
And AP failed to mention

Georgia Sierra Club's support for HB 267.

As a regulated monopoly, Georgia Power currently earns about 11
percent in profits when it invests its own money into power
projects. Chapman's legislation would reduce those profits if the
nuclear project is over budget, as is the current projection.

In Florida, there's a move to completely
eliminate Construction Work in Progress (CWIP)
such as is being used in Georgia to pre-fund the new Plant Vogtle nukes.

In Florida, lawmakers want to end the practice of utilities
collecting fees from customers before any electricity is produced.

Florida only recently got CWIP, but Progress Energy has been quick to profit by it:

Continue reading →

Renewable energy much needed in Georgia —John S. Quarterman

My op-ed in the VDT today; I’ve added links, plus some more after the op-ed.



Finally! Kewaunee, Calvert Cliffs, and now Crystal River
permanently closing say it’s time for Georgia to stop wasting money
on Southern Company’s already over-budget and increasingly-late
nukes and get on with solar power and wind off the coast: for
jobs, for energy independence, and for clean air and plenty of
clean water.

February 2013:

Duke Energy is closing the Crystal River nuclear
reactor

(Tampa Bay Times, 6 Feb 2013),
160 miles south of us, because

nobody wants to pay to fix it:
between “$1.5 billion and $3.4 billion,
plus what it costs to buy power to replace
what Crystal River would have produced while it is
being repaired”

[Charlotte Business Journal, 11 Jan 2013].
November 2012:

NRC terminated Maryland’s Calvert Cliffs 3

(NRC 1 Nov 2012)
after

Constellation Energy dropped out because the cost “is too high
and creates too much risk for Constellation”

[Bloomberg 10 Oct 2010].

Continue reading →

Duke Energy is closing Crystal River nuclear reactor



Finally!
The reactor
only 160 miles from here
that

nobody wanted to pay to fix
is closing for good: Duke is closing Crystal River.
After Kewaunee and Crystal River closing, which one is next?
San Onofre?
The never-opened Vogtle 3 and 4?

Ivan Penn wrote for Tampa Bay Times today,

Duke Energy announces closing of Crystal River nuclear power plant,

Duke Energy announced early Tuesday it will permanently close the
Crystal River nuclear plant that has been shut down since late 2009.



The company said it is reviewing alternatives, including building a
new natural gas plant, to replace the power produced by the nuclear
facility.

Duke's four coal-fired plants will remain in service at the same
Citrus County complex where the nuclear plant, known as CR3, is
located.



How about they build
offshore wind farms
and solar farms
instead, like

TEPCO is doing near Fukushima?
Those can be built on time and on budget, use no fuel, and cause no pollution.
And how about

rooftop solar for jobs and energy independence?

There's more in

the article,
including this:

Continue reading →

Crystal River nuke still can’t get insurance payoff



Nobody wants to pay to fix

Progress Energy's Crystal River nuke:
not PGN, not its new owner Duke Energy, not
Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. (NEIL).
So maybe this nuke, only

160 miles from here,
will be staying shut permanently?
What say we do the same for the new nukes at Plant Vogtle,
only

200 miles from here,
before they even open?

John Downey
wrote for the Charlotte Business Journal,

Crystal River nuke plant stymies Duke Energy
Utility facing penalties, high costs for repairs,

After two mediation sessions, Progress Energy Florida and its
insurer haven't agreed how much of the potential repair costs for
the utility's crippled Crystal River nuclear unit are covered.

It appears all but certain that Progress — a Duke Energy Corp.
subsidiary — will have to pay millions of dollars as a penalty
for failing to make a timely decision on whether to repair the
plant.

Repair expenses have been calculated at between $1.5 billion and
$3.4 billion, plus what it costs to buy power to replace what
Crystal River would have produced while it is being repaired.

What kept shut Crystal River down from 2009 on was

a concrete containment separation.
Maybe those

errors in pouring concrete at Plant Vogtle
are

Continue reading →

Florida Crystal River nuke down $5 billion?



Only
160 miles from here,
the Crystal River nuclear reactor continues to run up a bad bill,
maybe as much as $5 billion,
and even other nuclear operators are reportedly starting to turn against it.
Should we wait for the new nukes on the Savannah River to run up a bill
that high before we cancel them?

Remember

back in May?

Florida is already experiencing a likely future for the new Plant
Vogtle nukes in Georgia: completion date pushed back, and customer
charges raised.

Yep, that’s the one.
And the bill keeps going up, as
Ivan Penn wrote for the Tampa Bay Times 30 December 2012,

Utilities nationwide could share the financial pain of the idled Crystal River nuclear plant,

The crippled Crystal River nuclear plant is now America’s headache.

The bill to fix it and pay for replacement power may top $5 billion.
The problem?

The company that insures all 104 U.S. nuclear power plants has just
$3.6 billion on hand to pay for claims.

Broken nuclear plants in California, Texas and Michigan will vie for
some of that money. But Crystal River alone represents such a
financial threat that the insurance company, Nuclear Electric
Insurance Ltd., may demand that its member utilities pony up more
money.

Is NEIL the guarantor on the bonds for the new nukes at Plant Vogtle?
I think Southern Company was smarter (for SO, not for us)
and

got Congress to guarantee those.
If so,

Continue reading →

Change the Atomic Energy Act? How about change the Georgia Electric Territorial Act?

In reaction to

the NRC denying a nuclear permit for Calvert Cliffs,


some nuclear backers suggest

changing the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to permit majority foreign ownership
of nuclear reactors.
What will they suggest next?
Asking Iran to invest in U.S. nukes?

Steve Skutnik wrote for http://theenergycollective.com 5 September 2012,

A cost-free way to open up nuclear investment,

If this seems entirely backward in a world of global production and
investment, that’s because it is. The current regulation is an


artifact of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which first authorized
private ownership of nuclear facilities. (Prior to this—per
the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, all nuclear technology was considered
a state secret, during the short time in which the U.S. enjoyed a
monopoly on the technology.)

Is there any real compelling reason for restrictions on foreign
ownership and investment in nuclear facilities to exist at a time
when the U.S. holding a monopoly on the technology has long since
passed? Issues of safety here of course are irrelevant—the
facilities would be licensed and regulated by the NRC, just as any
other nuclear facility is now. About the only salient objection is
the political one—i.e., the implications of a foreign entity
maintaining controlling ownership in key infrastructure. (Although
it’s hard to see anyone getting particularly upset about the
reverse—U.S. entities owning a controlling stake in
infrastructure in other nations.)

Yeah, sure, strict regulation
will deal with that, just like it prevents fracking from setting
drinking water on fire, or BP from poisoning the Gulf.
The new NRC head is

maybe well-meaning,
but it’s the same NRC

that gave Vogtle 1 a clean bill just before it had to shut down
and the same NRC that’s ignoring

cancer in Shell Bluff.

Oh, by the way, the article gets to the main point eventually:

Continue reading →

NRC rejects nuke permit for EDF in Maryland

French nuclear operator Électricité de France (EDF)



was denied a license last week for the proposed Calvert Cliffs
nuclear reactor in Maryland, because the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 prohibits majority foreign ownership
of nuclear plants.
EDF now has 60 days to find a U.S. partner, or give up the project.
Who could the possible suitors be?
Hint: think southeast.

The handwriting was on the wall two years ago when
Constellation Energy pulled out of the project.
Jim Polson and Alan Katz wrote for Bloomberg 10 October 2010,

Constellation Drops Nuclear Plant, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans,

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a $7.5


billion loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with
Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s
U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.

The cost of the U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’
joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the
Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for
Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement
yesterday. The statement said the next step is up to EDF. Enlarge
image U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government
estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to
the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of
line with both our own independent assessments and of what the
figure should reasonably be.”

Constellation’s decision may make it more likely that the U.S.
utility will exercise a put option forcing EDF to buy as much as $2
billion of Constellation’s non-nuclear power plants, said Ingo
Becker, head of utilities sector research at Kepler Capital Markets.

“EDF very clearly said if they exercise the put, this thing is
over,” Becker said. “Constellation may have just turned
around the calendar and pulled out of the new build before
exercising the put, anticipating EDF’s reaction.”

In a letter Oct. 8 to Daniel Poneman, deputy secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy, Constellation said it received a government
estimate that the venture would have to pay about $880 million to
the U.S. Treasury for the loan guarantee, “dramatically out of
line with both our own independent assessments and of what the
figure should reasonably be.”

Meanwhile, Southern Company

is still trying to reduce what it has to pay for its
$8.3 billion federal loan guarantee.

Back in Maryland, the news got worse for the nuke last year.
EDF

asked for the state’s help,
but didn’t get the answer it wanted.
Scott Dance wrote for Baltimore Business Journal 16 December 2011,

EDF: Constellation-Exelon settlement hurts Maryland nuclear industry,

Continue reading →