[ RadSafe ] FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida
RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P
INTERVIEW  -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again
Africa claims right to nuclear energy 
California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant
No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville
Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred
Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board
Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy
Namibia to develop nuclear power plant
Germany reconsidering nuclear power? 
Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power
==============================================


FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida early this year

Jan 12 - Florida Power & Light Co. plans to announce the site for a proposed nuclear power plant in the state during the first quarter of the year, moving it a step ahead in the process that could result in Florida's first new nuclear plant in more than two decades.

Juno Beach-based FPL, which operates two nuclear complexes at Turkey Point and St. Lucie, has not committed to building a new nuclear generating facility. But choosing a site represents an early step in the long and complicated process of deciding on the economic merits of building a new plant, which could cost $5 billion to $6 billion, developing the project and obtaining licensing and other approvals from federal, state and local authorities.

If a new plant is built, FPL customers could see their bills rise to cover a variety of costs, including preconstruction expenses and operating and maintenance costs.

The last time FPL built a nuclear reactor was in the early 1980s. The second unit at its St. Lucie complex went into operation in 1983.

The company is still evaluating potential sites and studying different technologies that could be used, said FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott. Last April, the company initiated the approval process when it notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intention to submit a license application in 2009 for a new nuclear plant. Obtaining a license for a new plant, which would include a reactor design approved by the NRC, takes several years. FPL estimates that it could take 12 years between initial planning for a nuclear complex and putting it into operation.

Last month, St. Petersburg-based Progress Energy Florida, which operates a nuclear plant in Crystal River, selected a site in Levy County for another proposed nuclear facility.

FPL is considering a nuclear plant as part of its long-term plan to meet increasing demand for electricity and to diversify its fuel sources, Scott said. Currently, the company uses natural gas to generate about 42 percent of its electricity, while nuclear power accounts for 19 percent. High prices for natural gas in past years have driven up electric bills, encouraging the company to study nuclear power as an alternative.

The Public Service Commission is looking at ways to reimburse utilities for pre-construction costs on nuclear plants, which can run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Under a current plan, pre-construction costs approved by regulators would be passed along to customers. After a plant goes into operation, base rates would also rise if approved by regulators.

While FPL would not comment on sites under consideration, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that choosing a site that has already been approved, for example, the location of an existing plant, could speed up the approval process.

There are 103 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, but no new facilities are under construction.

Aside from FPL and Progress Energy, 12 companies or consortia are at various stages of planning for new nuclear plants.

FPL's parent, FPL Group Inc., operates nuclear, wind, solar, fossil fuel and hydroelectric power facilities outside Florida.
------------------

RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P

LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Resurgent interest has U.S. utilities viewing nuclear power more positively but high costs will restrain them from building plants for several years, said a report issued this week by Standard & Poor's.

While rust grows on the 1980s protest "No Nukes" buttons, there remains considerable public opposition, which is a factor in nuclear's future, the report said. 

Even if America embraces nuclear power as a reliable source of no-emissions electricity, hefty costs for obtaining permits and construction of up to $3-$4 billion per plant, will give utilities pause.

"Standard & Poor's does not anticipate construction of new nuclear plants to start in the next few years," said the report, whose main author was S&P analyst Dimitri Nikas.

"While nuclear generation can provide many benefits, the challenges of successfully completing the next construction cycle will be significant," the report said.

New units could be on line by 2014, the industry trade group Nuclear Energy Institute has said.

S&P showed that the estimated operating costs of a nuclear power plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build would produce electricity at $55 per megawatt hour (MWh). This is near the $53 per MWh cost of pulverized coal power production and $50 per MWh for an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that burns coal.

Spot uranium prices have also doubled to $72.0/lb in the past 12 months, said Ux Consulting, a publisher of uranium prices and price forecasts, as speculative investors have rushed to take advantage of rising energy costs and a market sharply in deficit.

But nuclear power construction costs are expected to decline after a first wave of units to about $1.5 million per MW. At that level, which S&P said makes electricity at about $44 per MWh, "is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectric generation."

S&P said these operating cost estimates assume full recovery by utilities of all operating and capital costs. 

The newer permitting process will help stem cost overruns that plagued the industry during the last nuclear building boom in the 1970s and 1980s, S&P said.

ON EXISTING SITES

Attaining permits alone will cost a utility aiming to construct a nuclear plant $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Construction costs will be another $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion, S&P said, not including financing costs.

The report lists 13 proposed nuclear power plants encompassing at least 22 reactors, culled from public statements by 13 companies. The first license applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency are expected this year.

No nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978, the year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania.

There are now 103 working U.S. reactors with the capacity to produce about 98,560 megawatts, enough to power about 75 million homes. That is 10 percent of U.S. generating capacity.

The first nuclear power plant in the world opened in 1957 near Pittsburgh.

Companies that have said they are considering building new nuclear power plants -- mainly on sites of existing ones as a way to cut down on public opposition -- include Dominion Resources (D.N: Quote, Profile , Research); the federal Tennessee Valley Authority; Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile , Research); 11-company consortium NuStart Energy; Southern Co. (SO.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Progress Energy (PGN.N: Quote, Profile , Research); South Carolina public utility Santee Cooper and SCANA (SCG.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Duke Energy Corp. (DUK.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Unistar Nuclear, a joint venture of Constellation Energy (CEG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and French-owned energy group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile , Research); FPL Group Inc. (FPL.N: Quote, Profile , Research); NRG Energy (NRG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and Amarillo Power; and TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile , Research). 
----------------------

INTERVIEW  -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again

SOFIA, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Bulgaria will try to push the European Union's executive next month to let it reopen two Soviet-made nuclear reactors closed due to safety concerns or to pay it more in compensation, its energy minister said on Friday.

The Balkan country agreed to shut down two 440 megawatt nuclear reactors at its Kozloduy plant at the end of 2006 ahead of its entry into the bloc on Jan. 1. 

Now, using its new member status and pointing to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that say upgrades have improved safety levels at the plant, it hopes to overcome concern among older EU members and restart the units.

If not, the country will seek to raise the 570 million euros ($738.3 million) offered by Brussels to help pay for mothballing four of Kozloduy's six reactors to 1 billion, Energy Minister Rumen Ovcharov told Reuters in an interview.

"There is a heavy power regime in Albania. There are serious power shortages in Macedonia and Kosovo ... The Commission cannot turn a blind eye to that," he said.

"I will bring the issue up at the meeting of energy ministers next month ... and only after that will we think about compensation."

Bulgaria, until now the leading power exporter in southeastern Europe, has warned of a potential energy crisis in the region, where it covers 80 percent of the power deficit.

It exported a record 7.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006 but plans almost no exports this year because of the shutdowns.

Analysts say its chances of re-opening the units are slim, as Brussels has taken a hard line on shutting down Soviet-designed reactors in ex-communist Slovakia and Lithuania, which joined the EU in 2004.

But Ovcharov said more compensation was possible. The Socialist-led government estimates total losses to Bulgaria from the shutdowns -- including two older reactors taken off line in 2003 -- could top billions of euros.

"One billion (in compensation) is an experts' estimate. It is based on what other countries have managed to arrange, and is in line with the lost capacity and the effect on the economy," he said.

Bulgaria is also building a second, 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant at the Danube river town of Belene to compensate for the shutdown. It has contracted Russia's Atomstroyexport to build it and make it operational in 2013.

Ovcharov said he expected the state, which would keep a majority stake in the new 4.0 billion euro plant, to choose a strategic investor for the plant in the second half of the year.
-------------------

Africa claims right to nuclear energy 

A coalition of 45 African states has signed a declaration pledging to "promote the safe and accountable use of nuclear energy", reports SciDev.Net. The statement came at a two-day conference on nuclear energy in Algeria on 9-10 January.

"Africa is entitled to reap the benefits of atomic energy without any constraints or obstacles being put in its way," said Ramtane Lamamra, secretary-general of the Algerian foreign affairs ministry, prior to the meeting.

Industrialised nations have been pushing developing countries to do a better job than they did at controlling greenhouse gas emissions early in their economic development. This rules out conventional fossil fuel sources, and puts the emphasis on cleaner sources of energy, ways of capturing emissions from fossil fuel burning - or nuclear energy.

As you can imagine, the world's nuclear powers aren't so keen on a new wave of developing countries joining the atomic club. Some recent events go some way to explain this reticence: in 2004, Brazil, a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, was accused of barring access to IAEA inspectors, fuelling speculation that they might be producing somewhat more that energy. And then of course, there's the concern over Iran's pursuit of a nuclear agenda.

But should industrialised nations expect countries with a smaller pot of money for research to develop new sources of "clean" energy? The US has repeatedly said it would help with this, but the offer has been criticised as an excuse to increase US trade. What's more, over the past year, Africa has underlined its desire to drive its own development
------------------

California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant

LOS ANGELES - An environmental group has sued state coastal regulators, alleging they violated state laws by authorizing a project at a nuclear power plant without requiring its operator to follow measures to ease the facility's damaging impacts on the central coast.

The Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network is challenging the Coastal Commission's decision to approve the replacement of two steam generators at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant north of San Luis Obispo.

The project is intended to extend the life of the plant. Without the new generators, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company would have to shut down the facility by 2014, according to the civil suit filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court.

The suit said the commission held hearings and considered a staff review of the plant's environmental impact on the coastline. But the commission also approved the project without following a staff recommendation to impose mitigation measures, according to the suit.

The lawsuit claimed violations of the California Coastal Act and other environmental and land use laws. The environmental group, based in Playa Del Rey, is asking the court to invalidate the commission's decision.

"For the Commission to ignore the staff's recommendations related to mitigation was unconscionable, and is a clear violation of the law," said plaintiff's attorney David Weinsoff.

An after hours call Thursday to the Coastal Commission was not immediately returned.
----------------

No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville
 
RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. Jan 12 - A spokesman for the Entergy-owned nuclear power plant at Russellville says there is no indication that radioactive tritium has leaked from the plant. The tests were a precautions.

A nuclear industry group has agreed to regular checks of groundwater at all U-S plants. Seven of the 103 U-S nuclear plants have had tritium leaks, and the broad testing was begun in response.

Arkansas Nuclear One spokesman Phil Fisher says groundwater pathways under the plant were mapped and test wells were drilled in November. Tests on samples taken in December showed no tritium. Fisher says the tests will be done quarterly.
-----------------

Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred

PUTRAJAYA (Jan 12, 2007): Malaysia has shelved the nuclear option to produce electricity for the time being but will generate more hydro-electric power and reduce gas-powered energy over the next 10 years.

Energy, Water and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik said today the country's dependence on hydro-electric power will be increased from five per cent to 30% over that period.

Bernama quoted Lim as saying that the government hopes to reduce its dependence on gas-powered energy from the present 70% to 45%, adding that the option for hydro-electric power was prompted by the fact that it is a renewable, cheap and environment-friendly source of energy.

"Malaysia has enough hydro power to generate its electricity until 2030," he told reporters after attending the ministry's monthly assembly here.

Lim said the Bakun hydro-electric power project in Sarawak alone would produce between 4,000MW and 5,000MW of electricity, with the bulk of it for use in Peninsular Malaysia.

The country's energy source ratio now is gas 70%, coal 21% and hydro five per cent, with the rest made up of power derived from fuel and biomass. In the next 10 years, the government hopes to achieve a ratio of gas 45%, hydropower 30% and coal 25%, he said.

"At the moment, we put the possibility of using nuclear as our source of energy at the back of our mind. Not during my time. Probably after 2030, when we would have exhausted our renewable energy," he said. 

In reducing the country's dependence on gas, the ministry recently rejected applications for the setting up two gas-powered plants.

Lim said the country's heavy dependence on gas currently was the result of poor planning in the past and the "Kajang satay mentality" where everybody jumps onto the bandwagon when power producers began producing electricity using gas.

On the current negotiation between independent power producers (IPPs) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad on the capacity charges, the minister said he would suggest that IPPs help reduce their charges to TNB on a voluntarily basis and, in return, the ministry would extend their concession period.

Lim said the Water Services Industry Act and the National Water Services Commission (Span) Act, which were passed by Parliament last Julyr, would be gazetted by the end of this month.

Enforcement and implementation of the two acts would help the federal government to restructure the country's water services industry towards better management of water distribution and assets as well as reducing water loss, he said.

In the communications sector, the ministry would focus on promoting domestic roaming by encouraging telecommunications service providers to share their facilities to improve service, especially coverage.

He said the registration of pre-paid mobile phone users last year recorded almost 90% success, with 17.8 million out of the 18.5 million users responding to the exercise.

The ministry would also encourage the expansion of wireless broadband and fibre optic installation for its Internet protocol services to allow the public more access to the Internet this year, he added.
-------------------

Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board

Charlotte Jan 11 - The Nuclear Energy Institute has added Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Jim Rogers to its executive committee and board of directors.

Rogers fills the term that was held by Ruth Shaw, group executive for public policy and president of Duke Nuclear. Shaw is retiring from Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK - News) in the spring.
 
Before the merger of Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. of Cincinnati in April, Rogers was Cinergy chairman, president and CEO for more than 11 years.

All U.S. nuclear power plant licensees and selected representatives of other companies involved in nuclear technologies are members of the NEI board of directors.

The NEI, based in Washington, D.C., establishes policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies, and the executive committee sets broad policy for the industry.
---------------

Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy

Angus Reid Global Monitor - Adults who reside in countries that have joined the European Union (EU) hold differing views on nuclear power, according to the Eurobarometer conducted by TNS Opinion & Social. 37 per cent of respondents are opposed to the use of nuclear energy in their countries, while 20 per cent are in favour.

In Sweden, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary and the Czech Republic, more than a third of respondents express support for nuclear energy. Conversely, more than half of respondents in Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Austria are opposed.

There are 153 active reactors in the EU. Nuclear energy accounts for about a third of the EU’s energy supply. France gets almost 80 per cent of its energy from nuclear reactors.

In the EU, safety regulations regarding nuclear energy are outlined on the EURATOM Treaty, which is based on the need to protect "the public and the workforce from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation."

British prime minister Tony Blair has said he wants to build more nuclear rectors to produce energy in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Six years ago, Germany committed to shutting down all of its 17 nuclear power plants by 2021. This year, German chancellor Angela Merkel implied that she might be in favour of keeping them open, declaring, "It remains a fact that the phase-out has consequences and that we must not have a ban on thinking, especially those who say ‘We don’t want nuclear energy’ must take part in finding answers."

Governments in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have also taken action in favour of keeping their reactors open—at least for now. 

Polling Data

Are you in favour or opposed to the use of nuclear energy in your country? - Please use a scale from 1 to 7, ‘1’ would mean that you are "strongly opposed" to this energy source and ‘7’ would mean that you are "strongly in favour" of it. Codes 1-2 correspond to "opposed", 3-5 "balanced views" and 6-7 "in favour".

In favour
 20%
 
Balanced views
 36%
 
Opposed
 37%
 
Not sure
 6%

Source: TNS Opinion & Social / Eurobarometer
Methodology: Interviews with 24,815 people ages 15 and over in the 25 European Union (EU) member nations, two acceding countries, and two candidate countries, conducted from May 5 to Jul. 11, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
------------------

Namibia to develop nuclear power plant

Namibia has decided to convert its large uranium resources into electricity in a nuclear power plant because of the unreliable power supply from South Africa. 

It now depends on SA's Eskom for more than 50% of its power but this supply has often been interrupted because of power cuts in SA. 

Namibia is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and Namibia's mines and energy permanent secretary Joseph Iita is reported as saying his government has taken a policy decision to tap into the uranium resources for electricity generation. 
-----------------

Germany reconsidering nuclear power? 

BERLIN, Jan. 11 A second senior German official in as many days expressed interest in keeping nuclear power to diversify energy options and curb dependence on Russia.

The BBC reports German Economics Minister Michael Glos said the country should rethink its decision to phase out the country's 17 nuclear plants by the early 2020s. He said without nuclear power Germany wouldn't be able to meet goals in reducing greenhouse gas pollution.
 
This comes the day after Chancellor Angela Merkel also endorsed another look at the end of German nuclear energy.

Merkel's fragile coalition, however, is deeply entrenched with members of the Greens and Social Democrats who agreed to the policy in 2000; anything beyond words on the issue could spell the end of Merkel's government.

Concerns about Germany's dependence on Russia for fuel were first raised last year when Moscow decided to cut off the gas supply to Ukraine, which in turn halted the flow to Germany.

More recently, the ongoing Russia and Belarus energy row over how much Belarus had to pay for Russian gas also poses a threat to Germany and other European nation's fuel supply. 
 ------------------

Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power

Fort McMurray Today - Jan 12 - An aboriginal group in Fort Chipewyan is leery about the prospect of building nuclear reactors to help power the oilsands. Concerns over the quality of moose meat and other wild game and water quality are big enough concerns to worry about without nuclear talks to add further environmental concerns, said Dale Monaghan, acting chief executive of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. “Based on a number of industry hearings in the last six months that talked about dangerously high arsenic levels, plus the water quality concerns,” Monaghan said, Chief Roxanne Marcel is uncomfortable going to the next level of talks about nuclear power in the region, he said. “Nuclear power is so much more potentially dangerous than these other things we’re talking about. She can’t imagine going to something as lethal as nuclear,” Monaghan said. Talks about the use of nuclear power to generate steam and electricity in the oilsands were resurrected after a consortium including a research arm of the Alberta government said this week that a proposal is expected by the end of this month. Four unnamed companies have expressed interest in using energy from nuclear reactors in three Alberta locations -- including two in the oilsands. Husky Energy CEO John Lau said early this week his company is exploring nuclear as an option.  

Talks about the use of nuclear power sparked in September 2005 after French company Total E&P Canada Ltd. was reported to be willing to explore all alternative power sources, including nuclear, for its Joslyn project. But spokeswoman Christianne Wile said today Total is not interested and has never actively considered nuclear power for oilsands development. The French company is aware of the oilsands’ dependence on natural gas and it is actively looking at ways to reduce energy consumption, she said. The Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, disputes the nuclear industry’s claim that nuclear energy is economically and environmentally viable for the oilsands. “Mining and transporting uranium (from northern Saskatchewan) do not only have significant environmental impact but also a significant amount of greenhouse gas pollution,” Dan Woynillowicz, a policy analyst said. There’s risk associated with nuclear power and radioactive wastes, he noted. The nuclear industry hasn’t been able to address them adequately, the analyst said. Nuclear power has never been an economically viable option in Canada, Woynillowicz stressed, because it requires significant government subsidy. He said when the long term liabilities and insurance rates associated with addressing the radioactive waste are added up, the price tag of building, operating and maintaining a nuclear reactor could be more expensive than natural gas. Instead of going nuclear, the government and energy industry should spend their research dollars on renewable energy, he said. Monaghan said the Mikisew chief and her council want to be directly consulted about the matter. Asking people to come to a meeting where nuclear energy use for the oilsands will be discussed is not a direct consultation, he said. Mikisew Cree members aren’t against progress for industry in the region, but the chief is very leery of the term nuclear, Monaghan said. 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle 
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations 
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 
Tel: (949) 419-1000 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/