Nuclear power: Wave of the past or future?

October 15, 2009 | Tom Slater | Comments | |

nuclearreactorThe U.S. may soon get its first nuclear reactor in more than 30 years. UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the EDF Group — has proposed a new reactor for southern Maryland capable of generating 1,600 megawatts and powering 1.3 million homes twenty-four hours a day.

To put this in context, the largest wind power installation in the world, the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas, generates 735 megawatts — but only when it’s windy. Nuclear, by comparison, is massive.

Having cleared the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the New York Public Service Commission, the project is in the final phase of due diligence for a cut of the $18.5 billion in federal dollars earmarked for advanced nuclear development. There seems to be only one remaining roadblock: the Maryland Public Service Commission.

Even though the MPSC approved the reactor itself in late June after an 18-month study, there has been a great deal of protest around the hearings for the deal between Constellation Energy and the EDF Group. With a price tag of $7 billion, the reactor will require not only federal loan guarantees, but also substantial investment from EDF, requiring them to purchase a 50 percent stake in Constellation.

This seems straightforward enough. But the snag — apparently large enough to re-open MPSC hearings several times — lies in whether the investment would give French EDF too much influence over an American power company, Constellation’s subsidiary Baltimore Power & Light.

Those opposing the reactor and the deal between EDF and Constellation have called attention to potential energy rate hikes that could be levied to offset the cost of the plant’s construction. Despite what EDF calls “overwhelming public support” for the reactor voiced during the hearings, it seems there is a small but significant group opposed to it on financial terms. This group has issued construction estimates of up to $15 billion.

To counter these arguments, Constellation says the deal’s approval would create 4,000 construction jobs as well as 400 permanent positions at the reactor, while ultimately benefiting the area with cheaper electricity as well.

A hot topic of debate in the region, the reactor is emblematic of the U.S. nuclear industry as a whole. If one of the first realistic proposals in 30 years is stopped, how much hope will there be for the next?

Next Story: Use TownMe’s data to build your own Foursquare (or other location-based app)
Previous Story: 5 O’Clock Roundup: Sidekickers saved, e-books slashed, PCmover revisited

Bookmark and Share

Tags: ,

Photo of Tom Slater

About the Author, Tom Slater

Tom Slater is a freelance green technology reporter. He graduated from Evergreen State College and now lives in Oakland after working in the wilds of Utah and Colorado.

  • This is really awesome news. About freakin time, 30 years are you kidding. I forget the stat but if the just built like 30 of these they could power the whole country. There was a great episode of Penn & Teller's show called "BS" where they showed how nuclear power is one of the safest and most efficient forms of energy. I'm all for it.
  • Those who are in control of the energy source rules.
    Seems the French are winning as they have kept on developing nuclear power.

    So you all go and drive electric cars (thanks to Obama) powered by French nuclear power.
    The French gave the Statue of Liberty after all.
  • jfarmer9
    Take all the costs it takes to build a new nuclear plant and add in the relatively inexpensive costs of running, fueling, insuring, and decommissioning this future plant. Next divide the sum cost by the number years the plant will run which for a new nuclear plant could be over a 100 years. Now take this yearly number and take out 10%. You need to do this because nuclear power plants average 90% efficiency compared to wind which given the best location and the best technology runs at maybe 30% efficiency. The final number that you will come up with makes nuclear power cheaper than today’s coal plants and as cheap as a 50 year old hydro plant like Hover dam. Now this cost does not factor into the equation the very small amount of land that a nuclear power takes up compared to wind, solar, or hydro. And this number also does not take into account our future ability to “up rate” a nuclear power plant in order to gain even more megawatts out of it. Anyway you slice it nuclear is most reliable cost efficient power source for today and tomorrow.

    Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,

    JFarmer9
  • Peter A
    I think every nuclear zealot seems to forget that a) Nuclear is not renewable and b) The industry still cannot exist without oil and coal.
  • jfarmer9
    IF ANY INDUSTRY CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT CARBON IT IS WIND AND SOLAR NOT NUCLEAR.

    What is going to happen when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? The answer is a carbon producing unmanned natural gas plant kicks on. Being that the best efficiency that solar or wind gets is 30% this will happen quite often. So much for the US becoming energy independent, hey Peter? The reality is Peter there is a place for solar and wind and its maximum is 5% of our total electrical output. Any more does not make sense.

    250 New Nuclear Plants Now,

    Jfarmer9
  • Peter A
    First off, be careful when you make capitalized blanket statements like that. I never said anything about wind and solar. You just assumed that's what I was advocating.

    Let me pose my question more directly: What powers the mining, transportation, enrichment, re-processing and eventual disposal of nuclear fuel? What powers the construction of nuclear plants? Their decommissioning?

    Why is it that we keep seeding the nuclear industry with dirty energy instead of creating a closed-loop clean energy ecosystem?
  • jfarmer9
    Obviously carbon is your answer. But the limited amount of carbon that is released in comparison to the mega watts of clean power that nuclear produces makes your argument frivolous.

    But please if you can demonstrate what this "carbon free loop" you are you talk about is I would be all ears. I am sure what ever whacked out plan it is it is just that a whacked out pipe dream that has so many assumptions and flaws in it that it fails to stand on its merits. Please try to explain your position using sound science. I can stand debating people who really don’t have a clue about what they are talking about.

    Jfarmer9
  • Peter A
    Prove to me that nuclear can save the world, that we don't need anything else, and then MAYBE, I and the overwhelming majority will change our minds.

    In the mean time, good luck convincing anyone with your attitude and arrogance. Let me ask you this: Have you ever SOLD anything in your lifetime? Here's a clue: You don't call people idiots, directly or indirectly.
  • Peter A:

    Mining, enrichment, and reprocessing are all activities that are powered by electricity. That is the output of a nuclear power plant, so those are pretty easy to provide without fossil fuels. Transportation is a bit more challenging to provide directly with fission, but there is very little transportation involved in moving the concentrated nuclear fuels around the fuel cycle. For example, a large nuclear plant might require three truckloads of new fuel every 18 months, with the potential in newer designs to reduce that fuel demand.

    Now let me turn the question around - what do you propose to use as the closed-loop clean energy system?
  • I'm fairly reliable liberal but I don't see an American energy future without a re-commitment to nuclear energy. I've lived in the shadow of 2 plant for 17 years, and never felt threatened. I don't know the full science- I do know that upwards of 60% of our local power is coal powered and I'd take more nuclear any day.
    The scarriest attitude isn't the knee jerk reaction of some liberals, it is the broad based assault on science... can anyone see a future "Brownie" in charge of the NRC?
  • engagoteam
    Whatever:
    Nuclear power technology supplied by the French
    Wind power:technology supplied by the Germans
    Solar power: the cells will probably be made in Asia

    The change of power is upon us.
  • As we use to say in Boy Scouts, “there is nothing like pissing on the campfire”.