« BP-MIT Research Partnership to Focus on Energy Conversion Technologies | Main | New Technology for Metals Recovery from NIMH Batteries »
NRG Energy Submits Application for New Nuclear Plant in Texas
25 September 2007
NRG Energy and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) filed a Combined Construction and Operating License Application (COLA) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build and operate two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear power station site.
 |
| Advanced Boiling Water Reactor. Click to enlarge. |
The total rated capacity of the new units, STP 3 and 4, will equal or exceed 2,700 megawatts (MW)—enough to power more than two million homes. NRG has chosen Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology from GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy for the new units.
This is first license application submitted to the NRC for a new nuclear plant in 29 years. NRG expects to bring the units on line in 2014 and 2015.
The South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, which currently operates units 1 and 2, will operate the new units as well. The 12,220-acre STP site and 7,000-acre cooling reservoir were originally designed for four units. The two new units will be built adjacent to the currently operating units 1 and 2.
With the COLA submitted, the NRC begins an estimated two-month acceptance review process. It is then anticipated that the NRC could take up to 42 months for its detailed review process including staff discovery, site visits, company responses, hearings and NRC Environmental Impact Statements. Assuming this schedule, NRG would hope to receive its license approval and begin construction in 2010. With this time frame, STP unit 3 should come on line in 2014 and unit 4 in 2015.
September 25, 2007 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21897257
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NRG Energy Submits Application for New Nuclear Plant in Texas:
Comments
Over 30 sq mi for this nuke farm! People complain about how much land is needed for solar. Perhaps wind and solar could be put on this land in addition to the nukes.
Posted by: tom deplume | Sep 25, 2007 11:30:39 AM
I don't see any reason why not. Texas is already the biggest producer of wind energy in the US, surpassing California last year. Google Horse Hollow.
Posted by: Cervus | Sep 25, 2007 11:53:27 AM
This is a formal advance from the preliminary but formal planning to build, incurring millions of dollars of expenditures, to a formal Combined Construction and Operating License application, costing tens of millions of dollars to the Utility.
In the month and a half since last we posted on the revival of Nuke GEN III+ plants both worldwide and in the USA, other things have happened as well.
A month and half ago there were 28 Nukes in the pipeline to be built in the USA, which included projections for these Two ABWRs, that has been created in the last 15 months from zero.
Since then four more, to a total of 32, have entered th NRC's formal planned to build status. These two new ABWRs will be the 12 and 13th of this certified and standardized design to be built in the World. The ABWR is an advanced version based on the GE BWR reactors that were built worldwide and in the USA in the Second Generation building boom of the 1970s.
Those 4 additional Nukes as a reference, will generate more electricity than ALL the "new renewable" electricity generated by wave, geothermal, and photovoltaics and conventional Solar installed in the USA,combined. One more Nuke and five will exceed all the wind, wave, geo, solar, and PV electrical generation.
These clean and safer non-GHG emitting electrical generators, will provide the base load power to "refuel" the fleet of PHEV and BEV ground transport LDVs. These LDV vehicles are being designed and planned for manufacture by the world's auto makers in the second decade of the 21st century. Effectively that fleet of projected PHEVS and BEVs are now cleaner than originally projected. Many old dirty coal plants will be retired or be consigned to "standby" and occasional "peaking use" only, when these new Plants come on line from 2013-2019 or so.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Sep 25, 2007 2:58:34 PM
Cervus,
NRG is a merchant generator in a competitive market. They need to go with low cost generation. They have no renewables in their domestic fleet.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 25, 2007 3:37:01 PM
Tom
Did you notice that no additional land is required? Many thermal power build cooling lakes which become popular recreational areas and important habitat areas.
Posted by: Kit P | Sep 25, 2007 3:40:22 PM
Any chance that these will be plants that don't create weapons materials? Like the nuclear google guys idea? Just wishing out loud.
Posted by: Elliot | Sep 25, 2007 7:18:04 PM
Like every power reactor I know of outside the former Soviet Union, these reactors have an interesting temperature- and power-levelling tendency. If they are making more heat than the water flowing through them is taking away, they heat up, but when hotter, they get less reactive, so they soon are making less heat. Just exactly as much heat, in fact, as the water it taking. No operator action, nor any action by any computer or other automatic mechanism, is required; the atoms do it themselves.
That's why ships and cars and trains full of chemical fuel are always having it escape and mix with the surrounding air and burn more or less explosively, but fuel in reactors, even though it needs no air and is all there already, never explodes. So when Lonnie Dupre and one other Greenpeace contractor had to get on a nuclear icebreaker, they did so. Quietly, of course, because Greenpeace is supposed to believe -- as no-one actually does -- that reactors are dangerous, but on they got.
Posted by: G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan | Sep 25, 2007 8:05:53 PM
Eliott:
Weapon grade plutonium could not be produced on such commercial reactor. Nuclear fuel should be removed very quickly, in month or two, otherwise it will be contaminated by inseparable Pu241 and become useless as source of weapon-grade Pu239. Such stop-and-go is almost impossible on commercial nuclear reactor. That’s why, according to Wikipedia, not a single nuclear nation produced their first nuclear weapon on commercial reactors. Boiling water reactor uses water as neutron moderator, so even in quite impossible scenario that reactor will be modified to have neutron adsorption panels, Pu generation efficiency will be very low.
Actually, it is the reason why West could tolerate Iranian commercial reactor, but is adamant not to allow full uranium fuel cycle (enrichment).
The only commercial reactor with capability to generate weapon grade plutonium was idiotic Soviet RBMK. It used graphite as neutron moderator, which allowed to incorporate hermetic hollows filled with neutron adsorbing U238 panels; panels could be removed without reactor stopping. As a result, reactor was unstable (unlike self-regulating mechanism in ABWR, described by Cowan in previous post), plus contained substantially more radioactive materials, plus had combustible graphite in it core. All this were major contributing factors in Chernobyl disaster.
Of course, radioactive materials from any reactor could be used to create “dirty” bomb, and although ABWR could not produce thermal explosion like RBMK, it could leak radioactive materials. Luckily, probability of such event is incredibly low.
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 25, 2007 10:48:35 PM
Andrey,
I believe the Magnox reactors in England were originally 'dual use' (power and weapons grade plutonium production) in addition to the Soviet Chernobyl style reactors.
You are correct that a modern LWR (light water reactor) is not suitable for weapons grade plutonium production. This is because of excessive contamination with Pu-240 with high burnup fuel. The tolerance for Pu-240 is much higher for reactor grade plutonium as is used in France and Japan.
Cervus,
NRG does not have any current renewable power generation but it does have 450 MW of wind in the planning stage. It will be located in Texas and California.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 26, 2007 4:25:31 PM
I am in San Antonio & Totally Support the expansion. We want 40% or MORE of the new output. We have luddites here who need to move to a nice third world country!
Email me regarding how San Antonio can help.
William
I am a retired engineer & spent half my life in the energy business,
Posted by: william bringier | Aug 5, 2008 8:33:34 PM
