[ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear Power

Fri Aug 17 10:55:06 CDT 2007

As a former FPL employee (outage contract worker ) I am disappointed in
them. Like Dominion, they appeared to want to be a leading nuclear
utility in this country... setting a precedent for other utilities???.
400 megawatts in the next 5 years is not much of an increase in their
nuclear output or commitment. Are there  new plants now (inherently
safe) that are rated at 400 megawatts? I thought all the new designs
were going much above 1000 MW now. With the retiree "gold rush" we will
see in Florida soon and the power needs of that state to come,  I am
very disappointed in  FPLs approach. Their nuclear record is
exemplary...with St. Lucy and Turkey they must have near 4000 MW on
line....yet they are hardly sticking their toe in the water for now...on
the new generation plants, and only committing to 10% of current
production increase.  As far as their 2020 forecast, 13 years from now
with Florida retirees, who knows how much power will be needed...but I
am sure a lot! 3000 MW will not make much difference by then and way to
late to help the environment now. 

W. G. (Ward) Brunkow
U.S. DOE Contractor

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of stewart farber
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:29 AM
To: powernet at hps1.org; radsafe at radlab.nl; Sandy Perle; Muckerheide, Jim
(CDA)
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear
Power

RE: [ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear PowerHi
Jim,
Good question. Who knows what FP&L was assuming in arriving at their
estimate of 11 million tons avoided from 3,000 MWe of nuclear plant
capacity. 

However if they took their 2006 mix of generation: 

43% natural gas; 
18% coal; 
17% oil
and applied to that mix, the amount of CO2 released per kwhr [derived
from the DOE source cited in my earlier post]:

CO2 RELEASED PER kwhr:

Gas: 1.32 lb
Coal: 2.11 lb
Oil:    1.96 lb

you get a weighted average of  of CO2 released of 1.62 lbs/kwhr from
their fossil fuel generation mix.

So 3,000 MW[e] nuclear installed capacity at an assumed 85% plant
capacity factor [FP&L has averaged 90% last year!] would avoid 18.11
million tons of CO2 based on their mix of power sources.

By the way, my earlier post on CO2 avoided from COAL generation vs.
nuclear generation contained an error. I wrote:

"3000 MWe of generation plant at 85% capacity factor would thus avoid
production of 2.36 E6 metric tons or 2.6E 7 short tons of CO2."

It should have read:
"3000 MWe of nuclear plant generation at 85% capacity factor would thus
avoid
production of 21.4 E6 metric tons or 23.6 E6 short tons of CO2."

Best,
Stu Farber
===================================
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) 
  To: stewart farber ; Sandy Perle ; radsafe at radlab.nl ;
powernet at hps1.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear
Power

  Hi Stu,

  Could they be modeling their mix of coal and natural gas fired power?

  Regards, Jim

  -----Original Message-----
  From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of stewart farber
  Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 1:57 PM
  To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org
  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News]  FPL Proposes Expanding
Nuclear Power

  Hi all,
  I think the figures put out by FP&L on the amount of CO-2 avoided by
adding
  3,000 MWe to the grid are much too low by a factor of about 2.

  According to the DOE [See Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation
of
  Electric Power in the United States] -July 2000 [reference: Table 1,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
]

  Coal released 1.78  E8 metric tons of CO2 while generating 1.87 E9
kwhrs.
  This equates to  9.6 E-4 metric tons of CO2 per kwhr [2.11 pounds of
CO2 per
  kWhr]

  If FP&L adds 3,000 MWe of nuclear generation at 85% capacity they will
  generate 7.44 E9 kwhrs in a year/1000 MWe or 7.15 E6 metric tons of
CO2/1000
  MWe.

  3000 MWe of generation plant at 85% capacity factor would thus avoid
  production of 2.36 E6 metric tons or 2.6E 7 short tons of CO2.

  Can others verify or comment on my math showing 26 million tons of CO2
  avoided from 3,000 MWe vs. FP&Ls press release that "FPL estimates the
  additional nuclear power would keep 11 million tons of carbon dioxide
out of
  the environment every year". Has FP&L made an error?

  Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
  Consulting Scientist
  Farber Technical Services
  1285 Wood Ave.
  Bridgeport, CT 06604
  [203] 441-8433 [office]
  email: radproject at sbcglobal.net

  =====================================

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl at cox.net>
  To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>; <powernet at hps1.org>
  Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:28 PM
  Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear
Power

  > FPL Proposes Expanding Nuclear Power
  >
  > Florida Power & Light Plans to Expand Nuclear Power Capacity, Build
  > Nuclear Units in Florida
  >
  > JUNO BEACH, Fla. (AP) Aug 15  -- Florida Power & Light Co., a unit
of
  > energy company FPL Group Inc., said Wednesday it intends to expand
  > its power production in Florida and will pursue building two new
  > nuclear power units.
  >
  > FPL proposes to add about 400 megawatts of power capacity to its
  > existing nuclear power plants in Florida by 2012, pending regulatory
  > approvals. The company also plans to pursue the addition of two new
  > nuclear power units by 2020, which would add up to 3,000 megawatts
of
  > power to Florida's electric grid.
  >
  > FPL estimates the additional nuclear power would keep 11 million
tons
  > of carbon dioxide out of the environment every year, helping the
  > state meet its goals for reducing greenhouse gases.
  >
  > The proposals, still in the early stages of development, will
require
  > extensive review and approvals from state and federal agencies,
  > including the Public Service Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory
  > Commission.
  >
  > -----------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/