Tag Archives: NIRS

San Onofre nuke closing for good –Socal Edison

A big victory today for anti-nuke and pro-solar activists: the leaky San Onofre nukes will stay closed for good! Cost to close them? Between between $450 million and $650. This is after SoCal Edison and 20% owner San Diego Gas & Electric “more than $780 million replacing the steam generators several years ago, which ratepayers are now repaying.” The new Plant Vogtle nukes are already about a billion dollars over and 19 months behind: let’s stop them now before Georgia Power and Southern Company waste any more of our money on them.

PR from SoCal Edison today, Southern California Edison Announces Plans to Retire San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,

Continue reading

Calvert Cliffs nuke terminated

Yesterday on Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s website:

Update, November 1, 2012: UniStar is seeking review of decision by NRC Commissioners, Nuclear Energy Institute filed motion in support. NIRS and NRC staff support the ASLB decision. We will post the Commissioners’ decision when filed. However, today the ASLB officially issued an order terminating the Calvert Cliffs-3 licensing proceeding.

That continues what happened after EDF pulled out and neither Southern Company (SO) nor Duke would step in. Another one down, SO: watch out for your three-legged nuclear regulatory-capture stool at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah River!

-jsq

PS: Owed to Star Priscilla.

 

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