Further: More evidence that the capital intensive, heavily subsidized nuclear power industry is loosing the economic battle to alternative fuels and natural gas comes from Iowa. Iowa has one small boiling water reactor that generates about 600MW, Duane Arnold, located near Cedar Rapids. Mid-American Energy had plans to build the state's second reactor, but on Monday it announced it intended to scrap its plans and refund ratepayers $8.8 million unspent for a feasibility study. The company envisioned a modular nuclear plant, touted by industry boosters as the magic bullet against huge up-front capital expenditures and escalating costs. Only one problem with that: there is no approved design for a modular plant. The feasibility study started in 2010 which identified two potential 700 acre sites for building a modular plant expected to cost $1 billion. The study claimed the plant would be safe, cost-effective, bring in a $75 million payroll, and contribute another $1.2 billion in spending over the eleven year construction period. It was the usual rosy scenario of a $135 million annual boost to the Iowa economy. Then, reality got in the way. Iowans became concerned about the environmental issues associated with nuclear power such as water consumption, groundwater contamination, radioactivity leaks, and thermal pollution. Financing became an issue because ratepayers and not investors were expected to bear the risk of construction. Even AARP, the retired Americans' lobby group, helped kill legislation that would have allowed MidAmerican to charge customers for planning and construction of the plant before it was built, the same front running strategy used in Georgia to finance its
new Vogtle nuclear plant. A poll of Iowans found 77% opposed putting ratepayers on the hook upfront. Now that the "too cheap to meter" dream of the nuclear power industry
has been dispelled as an unhealthy obsession, Warren Buffett's Mid-American Energy can focus on its $1.9 billion project to build 656 wind turbines across Iowa so the wind can move more than just the corn. The company expects rates
to go down by $10 million when all the turbines are completed by 2017.
 |
| courtesy: Southern California Edison |
Update:{07.06.13}Southern California Edison has reluctantly decided to decommission Units 2 & 3 of its San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The station sits on top of an active geological fault, but the company only said in its statement that "continuing uncertainty about when or if [it] would return to service is not good for our customers, our investors..." SoCalEd intends to pursue a damage claim against Mitusbishi Heavy Industries, the designer and manufacturer of steam generating units that deteriorated much sooner than expected. Deterioration of steam tubes resulted in leaks of radioactive steam. The steam generators were replaced in Unit 2 in 2009 and two more in Unit 3 in 2010. Not being allowed to operate the facility at full power would be uneconomic for the company, and the requirement of a full evidentiary hearing on a restart by the Atomic Licensing Board did not presage well for a rapid return to normal operations. Petitioner Friends of the Earth said the company's decision was, "very good news for the people of Southern California. We have long said that these reactors are too dangerous to operate and now Edison has agreed. The people of California now have the opportunity to move away from the failed promise of dirty and dangerous nuclear power and replace it with the safe and clean energy provided by the sun and the wind."
{30.05.13} Faced with the prospect of an evidentiary hearing concerning San Onofre's continuing problems, Senator Babara Boxer (D) is asking for a criminal probe concerning statements made by the nuclear generating stations owners to regulators. She released a letter by an Edison executive to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, designer of the plant, that she characterized as "major new evidence of misrepresentation and safety lapses". Edison replaced the steam generators in 2009 without review by NRC because the company represented the replacements as the same parts.
In the letter a company vice-president said the parts "aren't like for like replacements", and the executive was concerned that the design of the "anti-vibration bar represented the most significant task facing the industry" which could introduce potential design flaws that will "lead to unacceptable consequences (e.g. tube wear and eventual tube plugging)." That is exactly the condition that caused the plant to shut down in 2012. Southern California Edison is unimpressed with Boxer's assertions, claiming the improvement of its steam generators was in accord with the NRC's section 50.59 which does not require identical equipment if enumerated criteria are met. San Onofre is located on the seacoast, 55 miles north of San Diego, population 1.3 million. The plant is forty years old.
{29.5.13} US Person reported previously about the nuclear power plant that is California's own Fukushima.
{12.01.13,"San Onofre NGS, Waiting to Close"} San Onofre has the dubious distinction of being located on both an active earthquake fault and on the Pacific coastline. It has been closed for repairs since January 2012, due to premature deterioration of steam tubes. Owner Southern California Edison wanted to restart the plant without the
pain of a formal re-licensing hearing but an administrative three-judge panel of the Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled on May 14th that a formal evidentiary hearing with public participation is necessary for issues related to the steam generator units at the facility. The ruling grants a petition for a formal hearing filed by the environmental organization, Friends of the Earth. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission previously indicated it would grant Southern California Edison permission to partially restart Unit 2 at less than full power without a public hearing. The safety board said a partial restart would be an
"experiment" since the tube degradation at San Onofre is "unprecedented". Unexpected tube vibration caused excessive wear in the generators which contain highly radioactive steam during operation. Under the Commission's own rules an experiment would allow the reactor to operate beyond the scope of the current license and without complying with applicable technical specifications. Both Units 2 & 3 are currently not producing electricity, yet the company continues to collect rates based on the plant being in service. Edison admitted it is unlikely Unit 3, which is the more severely damaged, would be operating in the near future. Readers will recall that a 9.0 megaquake on March 11, 2011 caused a tsunami that wrecked a similar seaside facility, Fukushima Daiichi, in Japan. There all four reactors' cooling systems failed resulting in the largest accidental release of radioactivity ever recorded.
