The picture is Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant located in California. The plant  rated capacity is 2,200 megawatts of  power. This plant can supply electrical energy sufficient to serve over two million households. There are two individual reactor plants each housed in the white cylindrical containment  vessels. The brown building in front is the turbine-generator hall.  Current nuclear  power plants supply about 20% of the electric energy used in the US

 The rated power capacity of Diablo Canyon is about equal to the sum of all of the installed capacity of wind power machines in California, but it produces about six times more electrical energy than all of the wind machine  taken together. Moreover, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant produces more annual electric energy than the total sum of the 6,774 MWe capacity of  wind machines in the entire US produce together. And the electrical energy produced by Diablo Canyon costs about a factor of three less than that from wind machines. Which power system do you think better serves the State of California?

To consider electric energy needs in perspective,  the U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting a 45 percent increase in energy demand by 2030, necessitating an additional 350,000 megawatts of new generation. The primary alternatives, natural gas and coal, each come with problems -- namely supply shortages and dirty emissions, respectively. Renewables will never fill a significant portion of the generation requirements.  Nuclear energy plants, meanwhile, have shown themselves to be safer and more productive than ever before.

Thanks to its nuclear energy program, France is presently able to meet on a self-sufficient basis 50 percent of its energy requirements compared to 20 percent thirty years ago.

---

 Benefits of Nuclear Power

 Safety- No form of electricity generation is completely safe but nuclear power has a good record. In the last forty years of using nuclear power there have been no fatalities occurring as the result of operation in the United States.

• Decreased Dependency on Oil- Decreasing our dependency on imported oil is beneficial from a political and environmental stand point.

• Economical- “Fuel costs for an equivalent amount of power run from 1/3rd to 1/6th the cost for fossil production, and capital and non-fuel operating costs are roughly equivalent, resulting in the overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity running 50% to 80% that of other sources.

• Reliability- Nuclear power plants and fossil run plants are equivalent in their reliability. “Nuclear power plant capacity factors average about 90%.

• Sustainability- Through the use of Breeder Reactors the generation of electricity could continue for over  thousands of years at present levels. Nothing else can provide this amount of energy. To remain on this earth, mankind must ultimately choose nuclear power.

---

How Productive are Nuclear Power Plants? 

Let's get an appreciation for vast energy production of nuclear plants in comparison to coal and natural gas fired electric generation plants. Consider three plants each 1,000 megawatt rating. A megawatt is one million watts. One such plant fueled with nuclear, coal, or natural gas can provide enough electrical energy in kilowatt-hours (kWh) for about one million homes. Now lets see how much mass of fuel is required to fuel each of these plants for one days operation. The answer below provides it:

• Coal fired plant - requires 8,750 short tons of coal per day. Exhausts each day about 400,000,000 standard cubic feet of carbon dioxide (24,500 short tons) or  (22,200) metric tonnes) and about 40 kg of uranium plus thorium.

• Natural gas fired plant (modern combined cycle) requires about 150,000,000   standard cubic feet of natural gas per day. . Exhausts about 150,000,000 cubic feet (9,250 tons) or (8,300 metric tonnes) of carbon dioxide per day.

• Nuclear fueled plant  requires about 3  kilograms  (7.0 pounds) of fissile uranium or plutonium per day.  Exhausts no carbon dioxide (CO₂), Nitrogen oxides NOx,  or any other pollutants. And the Presbyterian Church USA says nuclear power poisons the earth. How wrong can they be?

Can you believe these facts? A pint of fissile nuclear fuel can provide as much energy as 9,000 short tons of coal? And realize the trainloads of coal that must mined and  transported each day to provide the energy. And the pollution? Coal exhausts uranium and thorium into the atmosphere whereas the nuclear fission products will be put into a harmless glass form and contained.

Also notice that the coal plant exhausts more mass of nuclear isotopes than the nuclear plant uses for fuel. Coal from the earth contains about 4.5 ppm by mass of the combination of natural uranium and thorium.

One would think that the environmentalists would prefer nuclear to coal in view of all the advantages in pollution. Especially due to the green house gases that they think will ruin our landscape. Why don't they?

They don't because they are not willing to trade off the fact that nuclear can provide mankind fuel as long as needed. Environmentalists are afraid of this. They do not want people to proliferate or even be on this planet except themselves. This is known as being disingenuous. So they push conservation and renewables as the answer to our energy needs. Renewables will not support a significant number of people on this planet.

To see a Web page that that answers almost all questions one could ask. click on the following:  Nuclear Energy is the most certain future source

---

Nuclear is the Best Option

Talk about a turnaround. The average capacity factor of nuclear plants around 1990 was a dismal 70 percent, according to statistics collected by the Nuclear Energy Institute. When the 1992 energy act ushered in the era of deregulation, the only future for nuclear that Wall Street and the industry could see was decommissioning and sunken costs. Today, the average for all 104 plants is about 90 percent, with some plants running closer to 95 percent.

Adrian Heymer, NEI's senior director for new plant development, points to similarly impressive improvements in unplanned outages and productivity, with the number of workers-per-megawatt falling from 1.2 at the end of the 1980s to around 0.7 today. Even in a highly competitive energy environment, nuclear is, at least on an operational basis, not only price competitive but in some instances the cheapest of all available alternatives. In fact, operating costs per kilowatt-hour in 2006 were 1.68 cents for nuclear versus 2.2 cents for coal, according to NEI.

---

News about new plant proposals and also Areva's plans for an enrichment plant.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission took applications to build seven new commercial U.S. nuclear reactors last year, with 25 more licensing requests expected through 2009. As interest in nuclear power grows, there are two other uranium enrichment plants being built in the United States, one in southeastern New Mexico and another in Piketon, Ohio.

Areva plans to build a $2 billion uranium plant in Idaho

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- French-owned energy services company Areva Inc. will build what it's said will be a $2 billion uranium enrichment facility near the eastern Idaho city of Idaho Falls, after winning tax concessions from the state legislature meant to lure the plant to the region.

The plant will be built on a site near Idaho National Laboratory, where scientists have done research into nuclear energy since the 1940s, the company said Tuesday.

My Comment: Areva is a French organization that has gotten quite a toe hold in th United States to build new nuclear plants as well as uranium enrichment plants.  Recall that uranium out of the ground has only 0.73% uranium 235. A reactor needs are least 3% to 4% U235 to function. Some day we will have Fast Breeder reactors that will make plutonium and we will not need to enrich as much uranium then. 

---

Egypt is going nuclear. More power to them.

Egypt to Launch International Tender to Build Nuclear Power Station

Feb 15 - BBC Monitoring Middle East Egyptian Minister of electricity and Energy, Dr Hasan Yunus, has declared that Egypt will announce next week an international tender to build the first nuclear station for the generation of electricity in Egypt at the cost of some 5.1bn dollars to 8.1bn dollars.

---

In the report Recommendations for Development of Nuclear energy R & D Agenda, the following is stated:

 Nuclear energy continues to be the only sufficiently mature technology having environmental benefits of the reduction of acid rain, greenhouse gases, and global warming.

 Environmental benefits of nuclear power as a tool in the fight against increasing greenhouse gas emissions are clear, and nuclear power continues to have great promise for reducing society’s adverse impact on environmental issues. Nuclear power plants are currently displacing some147 MtC of carbon emissions per year in the United States and some 500 MtC per year worldwide. Nuclear power plants do not emit volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, all of which come from fossil fuel combustion and have significant health impacts on the public.

---

Democratic candidates for president are against nuclear power. Hillary Clinton is against every thing about Bush's energy policy.  She simply wants to be president and to hell with every thing else.

After moderator Brian Williams, the "NBC Nightly News" anchor, asked for their views on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, Obama vowed to "end the notion" of using the rural Nevada site to deposit nuclear waste. "I've been clear from the start that Yucca, I think, was a misconceived project," he said. But Clinton quickly cited her vote against the proposal in 2001. She noted that one of Obama's key supporters had tried to push the project. And she pointed out that Edwards had twice voted in favor of the nuclear site. "I have consistently and persistently been against Yucca Mountain, and I will make sure it does not come into effect when I'm president," she said. Edwards,  for his part, criticized past statements by Obama that he would be open to the construction of nuclear plants, and by Clinton that she was "agnostic" on the subject. "I am not for it or agnostic," Edwards said. "I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste.

"The candidates also skirmished over the 2005 energy bill. Signed by President Bush, it was the first national energy legislation in more than a decade. Obama said he supported it as a way to spur the development of alternative energy sources. "If we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States," the Illinois senator said. Clinton called the bill a giveaway to the energy industry that had been concocted by Vice President Dick Cheney. "It was the wrong policy for America," she said. "It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, 'You know, that's not going to move us on the path we need.' "  Hillary has never said what path we need.

---

Patrick Moore, the founder of Green Piece, changed his mind about nuclear and below is an interview with him. 

Patrick:  Six thousand people die in coal mines every year in this world. Look how many people die in car accidents and many of those are innocent passengers and pedestrians. The impact of fossil fuel combustion on public health is the single largest impact of any technology we have.

Interviewer:   But if we see more plants being built in the West, doesn't that increase  the chance for negligence and people cutting corners? I mean, the more people you have, the more chances for people to mess up you have.

 Moore: I don't know about that. You cannot build a nuclear plant in this world today without it being world-class in both its design and its operation. It's just not possible to do that. There is too much oversight. There is the International Atomic Energy Agency. There is the fact that these designs are coming out of the United States, France, and Russia. India, too; most people don't realize that India is at the very forefront  of nuclear technology, in recycling, in producing thorium fuel, in fast reactors. Their science is as good as anybody else's in the world, and the Chinese are fast becoming a major center for nuclear technology as well. I don't think that that is a risk. All the money that's going into subsiding solar is a waste of money. The nuclear industry has the most culture of safety around it of any industry. In the States it's safer to work in a nuclear plant than it is to work in either real estate or financial services, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

---

Nuclear Power vs Wind Power.

Carl Zichella, regional field director of the Sierra Club, called nuclear power "a spectacularly flawed technology" that is unnecessary, given advances in solar and wind power.

As an example, he noted that Oak Creek Wind Energy is launching a 1,550-megawatt project in Kern County. In comparison, each nuclear generator at Diablo Canyon and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has a capacity of between 1,070 and 1,087 megawatts.

"Why should we use nuclear power to combat climate change when we have cleaner, cheaper, faster and safer alternatives?" Zichella asked.

Here is the answer: Wind power systems only generate about one forth  the energy per installed KWe capacity compared to nuclear plants. . For example a 1,550 MWe wind generator will generate about  2,720,000,000 kW-hr per year where as the  2,200 MWe nuclear plant  Diablo Canyon will generate  about 17,300,000,000 kW-hrs per year.  On a kWe basis the nuclear power plants have capacity factors of 90% where as the wind plants have capacity factors  of 21%. A 90/21= factor of 4.21 advantage of nuclear power plants. And wind machines only produce intermittent energy and they are not very good producers during the very hot days of the Summer season.

As of this date the totality of wind machines in California produce about 1.7%  of the electrical  energy in the State of California compared to 13% for the existing nuclear plants. Moreover,  the Kern County wind farm will take many yeas to get 1,550 MWe of wind machines in operation and that is probably  the last available wind site in the state. California is not a particularly windy state. There are no category 5 wind sites available.

---

 Bodman, chairman of the US Department of Energy, said in prepared remarks, "Nuclear power is the only mature emissions-free technology that can supply the power America will need to meet the projected increase in demand for electricity over the next 25years." (October, 2007.)

My response: California should heed  this statement and get on with nuclear power. The renewables they tout will never do the job.

---

France is reaping the benefits of their nuclear program

. Over 35% of France’s total energy requirement and over 78% of French electricity demands are met by nuclear energy. In 1999, France generated 375 billion kWh of electricity from its fifty-eight pressurized water reactors currently in operation. The electrical generation capacity of these plants is 65,702 MW_e. France also operates one fast reactor, which generates 250 MW_e of energy. Because of their large operation capacity, the French also export energy, mainly to the rest of Europe, roughly 72.1 TWh per year. This large amount of energy generation allows France to be more energy self-sufficient than most European countries. In fact, France is over 50% able to meet its own energy needs, an incredibly large percentage for a modernized, western country.

---

My comment: In my opinion, with this action, California will never have sufficient electrical energy or meet lower CO2 requirements.

---

From Professor Ferdinand E. Banks

Every time I turn on the TV I hear how wonderful Stanford Group people are when it comes to economics and finance, but according to many article, Ms Christine Tezak of that group implies that nuclear is sub-optimal. Let's put this thing into perspective. A nuclear plant can and should be constructed in 4 years, and if such a facility has the efficiency of Swedish installations, it will be able to produce the lowest cost power in the world, guaranteed. Maybe not today, as Bogart said in 'Casablanca', but soon - especially since its life will not be the 30 or 40 years on which cost-calculations are often made, but at least 60 years. Moreover, once they start building new plants again, the technological improvements that should have been made years ago will take place.

Professor Banks is a man after my own heart.  Don Lutz

---

WILMINGTON, N.C. - May 1, 2007 - GE has been awarded a significant contract by Dominion (NYSE: D), one of the nation's largest energy producers, to secure critical, "long-lead" components for a possible next-generation nuclear power unit.

Dominion is considering constructing a third nuclear-powered electric generating unit at its North Anna Power Station in Mineral, Va. The order includes large forgings as well as fabrication of several schedule-critical nuclear and turbine components required for GE's ESBWR design.

With a growing number of utilities preparing construction and operating license (COL) applications to build new nuclear units, Dominion's order with GE helps assure the company that it will have crucial project components in place.

"This order represents a significant step forward as the U.S. nuclear industry prepares to build the first new domestic nuclear power unit since the 1970s," said Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business. "This contract demonstrates that GE is ready to start work.

---

Hearing set on Bush plan to tap nuclear energy

 Northwest residents will have their chance Tuesday in Pasco to discuss the Bush administration's proposed fuel recycling program to expand the use of nuclear energy.

The Department of Energy plans to take comments on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership before preparing an environmental study, and this is one of several public hearings scheduled across the nation.

DOE is looking at the Hanford nuclear reservation for three new facilities for the project: A nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research facility that could involve Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility

My comment: This is a significant move to regenerate nuclear power. it will preserve the nuclear fuel chain forever.

---

Exelon Nuclear Sets All-Time Generation Record in 2006

Exelon Nuclear produced 131.4 billion kilowatt hours in 2006, the most electricity ever produced by the nation's largest fleet of nuclear energy plants.

Detroit Edison Preparing License Application to Maintain New Nuclear

---

Russia plans to rapidly expand nuclear and get world wide business. We should also get world wide nuclear business, this would sure help our external payments.

ASE negotiating to build reactors in 20 countries, president says

Atomstroyexport is negotiating to build nuclear power plants in 20 countries, Sergey Shmatko, president of the Russian nuclear plant export company, told a press confer­ence in Moscow last week. However, he said, many more countries than that are interested in development of nuclear energy.

ASE's completion of two VVER-lOOOs at Tianwan, China has shown that the Russians are ready to construct series nuclear units, Shmatko said. ASE plans to contract for the second stage of Tianwan, units 3 and 4, in November 2008. Shmatko said negotiations on the contract will be started in January or February, with an April target for signing the agreement on development of the detailed design.

According to Shmatko, ASE is now negotiating to build power reactors in several countries of the Middle East, in particular, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Egypt. Shmatko said ASE has received inquiries from Indonesia, Thailand, and Bangladesh and is also "actively negotiating" with Vietnam. It is expected that the first Vietnamese atom­ic power station, to be between 1,000 MW and 2,000 MW, will be commissioned by 2017 in the province of Nintuan; construction work is planned to begin in 2012, he said.

ASE also plans to take part in tenders for construction of nuclear power plants in Morocco and Turkey. Shmatko said ASE, which recently had a team in Turkey, has proposed construction of nuclear units at both of the two sites under consideration, provided financing is available.

ASE has also begun preliminary talks with potential customers in Latin America, he said. In Moscow, at the end of October, ASE provided to senators of the Chilean National Congress information on Russian nuclear technologies, ASE's experience and possibilities, new projects, and information on Tianwan-1 and -2, which entered commercial operation in 2007. One of the conditions in Latin American countries is that part of the power plant equipment be delivered by local companies, said Shmatko.

---

Nuclear energy nearing revival: 30 new reactors are being considered as power demands rise

Dec 24 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Robert Manor Chicago Tribune After hibernating for decades, the nuclear industry is cautiously gearing up to build a new fleet of reactors to generate electricity, benefiting from political support while hoping to avoid the blunders of the past.

"Nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States," President Bush said last week at a press conference. "Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas."

The Bush administration has consistently supported construction of new nuclear plants, offering billions of dollars in subsidies, but the industry says real momentum is only growing now. The attraction of nuclear energy is that it can generate massive amounts of electricity very cheaply, assuming the nuclear plants are run efficiently.

"At least 30 reactors are being considered," said Scott Burnell, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As recently as two years ago, a handful of new nuclear plants were under consideration.

The nation currently has 103 operating power reactors.

Anti-nuclear activists warn that the nation is about to repeat the mistakes of 30 years ago, when nuclear plants suffering from bungled design and delayed construction led to huge cost overruns, much of it paid for by consumers. My comment: The anti-nuclear activists should review the  past history where nuclear is providing the most economical electrical energy in the US and most of the 103 plants have been licensed to operate another 30 years,.

But Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein has a positive term for the new interest. He calls it "the nuclear renaissance." He said recently that the NRC expects to receive the first application for a new reactor next year, with as many as 30 to follow.

Most of the interest is in the South or Southeast, where the demand for electricity is growing quickly,

My  Comment: California should follow the lead of the South and not rely on renewables as their future electric energy provider. California will be short of energy soon and then the year 2,000 debacle will repeat itself.

---

Tepco advises STPNOC on ABWRs 19 March 2007

[Tepco, 13 March] Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) has signed a technical consulting agreement with the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co (STPNOC) regarding the construction, operation and maintenance of two General Electric (GE) Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear power plant. A project development agreement to study the deployment and begin licensing activities for two ABWRs that would be constructed at the STP plant was signed by GE and STPNOC in August 2006. The agreement came just weeks after STP's 44% owner, NRG Energy Inc, announced its intention to pursue the two-unit ABWR project. STPNOC is currently proceeding with an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license for the project. Tepco has experience of constructing, operating and maintaining ABWRs at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan.  

My comment Looks like Texas is serious about nuclear power plants.

---

A FRESNO GROUP WILL STUDY BUILDING A NEW POWER REACTOR in the vicinity of the central California city. On December 13, a group calling itself the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC (FNEG) announced that it has signed a letter of intent with UniStar Nuclear to explore the feasibility of building and operating a U.S. EPR pressurized water reactor. FNEG, made up of local businesspeople, has proposed operating the reactor as a public/private partnership.

My Comment: This is indeed a pleasant surprise.

---

Florida Well-Positioned for New Nuclear Plants, Industry Executive Tells Miami Business Leaders
Thanks to strong business, government and public support, Florida is well-positioned to build new nuclear power plants to meet the state's fast-growing electricity needs, Nuclear Energy Institute President Emeritus Joe F. Colvin said in a speech here today.

---

Nuclear is underway in other  parts of the world

France produces 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy. China, India and Russia plan big expansions of their nuclear energy capabilities. More than 140 nuclear power plants are under construction or in planning around the world.

Except for the 1995 opening of a new facility in Tennessee, the last U.S. nuclear plants to go on line are now two decades old. A new reactor hasn't been ordered in the United States since the late 1970s.

France  will bring Nuclear to the world

France makes no secret of its continuing nuclear ambitions. EdF has already said it would look at possible sites in nuclear-friendly states, including the UK. Even in Germany where, in the late 1990s the anti-nuclear sentiment was so strong that the ruling socialist-green alliance banned the building of new plants, there is a palpable swing of mood. And the voice from Brussels is no longer resignedly accommodating at the mention of nuclear power, but proactive to the point of animated.

---

U.S. To Convert 34 Tons of Plutonium into Nuclear Fuel

Jul 27, 2006 -- STATE DEPARTMENT RELEASE/ContentWorks The United States is on track to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium -- capable of making thousands of nuclear warheads -- "by irradiating it as fuel in nuclear reactors to produce electricity," an Energy Department official says.

Ambassador Linton Brooks, under secretary of energy for nuclear security and administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told a House Armed Services subcommittee July 26 that of the approximately 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium in the U.S. inventory, 34 tons will be used as nuclear-reactor fuel.

In his prepared remarks, the under secretary said each country is committed to eliminating 34 metric tons of its surplus weapons-grade plutonium under a 2000 U.S.-Russian agreement. This U.S.-Russian plutonium disposition initiative is the largest U.S. nonproliferation program, according to Brooks.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency Director Sergei Kiriyenko earlier in July reaffirmed their commitment to implement the 2000 agreement. (See related article.)

To dispose of the U.S. plutonium, the Energy Department will construct three facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to convert the plutonium into mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel, or MOX fuel, Brooks said. This mixed fuel then will be fissioned  in nuclear reactors to produce electricity.

"Once the plutonium has been irradiated in a reactor, it has been converted to a form that can no longer be used in a nuclear weapon," he said.

Brooks added that mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel technology is "well-established and mature," and that it "is currently being used in more than 30 reactors worldwide."

My comment: This is tantamount to forging weapons to plow shares. This means that there will be tremendous  amounts of fuel for commercial reactor plants. It should mean the cost of energy from nuclear plants will be even be more economical.

---

It may be dawning on national environmental groups that nuclear power will be essential in the battle against global warming. Three leading environmentalists - Fred Krupp, director of Environmental Defense; Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute; and Gus Speth, cofounder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and now Dean of Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies - said recently the global warming problem is so serious that nuclear power deserves another look.

My Comment; Of course, what else can generate as much energy without emitting green house gases?

---

Comments by the Experts

Any discussion of nuclear energy ultimately centers on its safety. According to Keuter, no member of the public has ever been killed because of a nuclear plant in 40 years in the United States. The tragedy of Chernobyl, which occurred in the Ukraine in 1986, was the result of a Soviet-style design that had no containment structure, he says. That type of technology would not be permitted in this country. Finally, he says that it is a myth that nuclear plants cause cancer, adding that citizens receive more radiation from natural sources than nuclear generation.

"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," says Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientist of Green spirit in Canada. "Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither carbon dioxide nor any other air pollutants." His views are supported by the African American Environmental Association and James Lovelock, an expert on the greenhouse gas effect.

---

Finally some real results for world wide nuclear power.

February 6, 2006

Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to expand safe, clean, reliable, affordable nuclear energy worldwide

WASHINGTON, DC – As part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today a $250 million Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 request to launch the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).  This new initiative is a comprehensive strategy to enable the expansion of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by demonstrating and deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear fuel, minimize waste, and improve our ability to keep nuclear technologies and materials out of the hands of terrorists. 

“GNEP brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the globe, in an environmentally friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation.  If we can make GNEP a reality, we can make the world a better, cleaner, safer place to live,” Secretary Sam Bodman said.

---

Nuclear Power 2010

        News Release

Tennessee Valley Authority Releases its Cost and Schedule Estimate for a Twin Unit General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor at its Bellefonte Site in Alabama

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has received a final report from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) on the cost and schedule estimate to build a twin unit General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) at its Bellefonte site in Alabama. TVA, along with team members Toshiba, Bechtel, General Electric, Global Nuclear Fuels-America and the United States Enrichment Corporation, completed the 13 month study to determine and present in detail, the engineering, procurement and construction schedule, (EPC) and economics for building the twin unit ABWR.

The overall conclusion of this cost and schedule study is that two ABWR nuclear units can be constructed at the Bellefonte site on a 40 month schedule for each reactor. This time frame is the duration from installation of the first reactor structural concrete to fuel load. The engineering, procurement and construction cost for the two units is $1611/KW for the 1371MWe certified ABWR plant design that incorporates some technology advancements developed during the Japanese and Lungmen ABWR construction. A higher power ABWR incorporating other power increase design features identified in this report would increase the output to 1465MWe reducing the EPC cost to $1535/KW. These EPC costs would be the basis for a firm fixed price offering to TVA.

The results of this study provide the nuclear power industry with a very detailed estimate for construction time and cost, based on 2004 dollars, of building a new ABWR nuclear plant. This estimate should establish an upper bound for the cost of a new nuclear power plant since the newer passive reactor designs are expected to be simplified and more economical to build. The completion of this report will also assist TVA in determining its path forward in installing new nuclear capability at the Bellefonte site in Alabama.

This study was funded under an interagency agreement by the Nuclear Power 2010 program (NP shared efforts to expand the use of nuclear energy in the United States and implemented by the Department's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

My comments:

General Electric and team have now made a firm commitment to supply two nuclear power plants and at a capital cost that is very favorable. This should quiet the Anti-Nukes who maintain that nuclear power is too expensive.

---