NUCLEAR POWER: Safe, Reliable, Clean, Poised for Growth
Published: May 24, 2009
MORE: |
Clean, safe, and reliable nuclear energy has been the workhorse of electric power generation in the United States for more than 30 years and is once again poised for growth to meet the new electrical demands of the future.
About 20 percent of the nation's electri cal requirements are being met today by 104 operating nuclear units. About 15 percent of the world's electrical needs are being met by 436 commercial nuclear units.
Because nuclear units use energy from fission to create heat and make electricity, no greenhouse gases are produced and released into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the used nuclear fuel, while radioactive, is small and stored safely and isolated securely from the environment.
Dominion has been working through new federal regulations that will lead to a new generation of nuclear units in this country. Dominion wants to ensure that this safe, proven technology will continue to play a key role in the economic well-being of the commonwealth and meet the projected demand for energy from our customers.
Today, Dominion's Surry and North Anna power stations provide more than one-third of the electricity in our service area. They have been recognized over the years as some of the lowest-cost sources of generation in the country.
At Surry Power Station in Surry County, two reactors produce enough electricity for 400,000 homes. The two reactors at North Anna Power Station in Louisa County generate enough electricity for 450,000 homes. The stations' original 40-year operating licenses have been renewed for 20 years by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and both stations will continue to provide safe, reliable electricity for Virginians through 2033 and 2040, respectively.
Conservation and renewable energy generation will play an important role as we prepare to meet the future needs of our customers. The company has partnered with The Home Depot to provide more than 3 million energy-saving compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs at a discount to the public. The company is investing in renewable generation projects, including wind and biomass, and new customer-friendly programs designed to save energy.
While these investments will help meet the forecasted future electrical demands of our customers, they will not be enough to close a projected 4,600-megawatt gap between supply and demand in Virginia by 2019. To close this gap, the company is building new power stations in Wise and Buckingham counties and is working through the licensing process for a possible third nuclear unit at North Anna Power Station.
Since the company began working through the federal licensing requirements for the next generation of nuclear units, it has obtained an early site permit for North Anna. This permit was issued by the NRC in November 2007 and is good for 20 years.
Dominion has also submitted a Combined Operating License (COL) application for North Anna Unit 3. This COL combines an early site permit and an NRC-certified reactor design into a license to construct and operate a new unit. Since the application was filed, the NRC has issued a draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, stating that it sees no reason why the license should not be issued.
Should Dominion decide to build a new nuclear unit, the company must have approval from the NRC and authorization from the Virginia State Corporation Commission before building it.
Nuclear energy has been and will continue to be an important part of Virginia's energy equation. Dominion is demonstrating its commitment to preserve this important option for our state's future energy needs with our work on a possible new unit at North Anna.
David A. Christian is president and chief nuclear officer for Dominion. Contact him at
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
There have been around 30 studies into health effects of nuclear power which have demonstrated that there are higher levels of childhood cancers when you live near to nuclear power stations. The reason why I quote the two studies I have are: i) The KiKK study in Germany shows that the effect increases the nearer you live to the power stations; ii) The US study shows that the level of childhood cancer decreases once the generation of electricity by nuclear power stops. This provides not just an effect, i.e. increased childhood cancers, but also a probable cause, i.e. generation of electricity by nuclear power.
Why do the industry or government not undertake further studies to definitively answer this question? You tell me! Could it be to do with a positive answer to this question may open them and the industry to legal action for damages?
So the scare type tactics of the anti’s, really dont scare me. I call it like it is, lack of scientific back up is pretty much lack luster. If indeed there were some type of merit to this so called “study” it would actually be criminal to not further document cases and actualities as well as further studies be performed. If this so called study is felt to be truth by this organization (I am sure is an anti nuclear group) I find it actually, sad that further studies are not apparent or even government funded if these groups have proof. The only conclusion to be really believed is that this study is not of merit. I have seen this type of scare tactic used in other parts of the country. Have you ever seen the actual recorded readings of radiation measurements around a plant..I doubt it, or why is there no inclusion of factual readings? Maybe we should put a sticker on the side of a reactor that has surgeon general warnings…like a pack of cig’s, and there are not comparisons there, that is not even close. We have to remember that, in certain areas of our country we have greater pollution, pesticide usage, industrial hazards, feltilizer usage, etc. but….there is a nuclear plant within 50 miles….The sky is falling…we need to concentrate on our actual problems and wuit being a chicken little to things people really dont understand.
So the scientific studies presented in peer reviewed journals are “lies” are they? I will advise the people who undertook the research, in good faith, and have reported on the evidence in a responsible way that they are liars. I expect that if you continue to repeat that assertion, they may well instruct their lawyers to get in touch.
The dramatic over-reaction of the pro-nuclear lobby when facing any demonstration of the health effects of low level radiation indicates just how worried they are. Let’s remember that until twenty years ago the professional tobacco industry lobbyists were denying the link between lung cancer and smoking!
Evidentally, you must feel some guilt? There were no personal attacks, just facts. The results of such cancer cases are unfounded and the general anti movement is full of LIES. If you catagorize yourself as such then so be it, sometimes it should be stated as it is found, to heck with being politically correct, that has been a point of American downfall also. The cancer findings are not government founded and if there is a .001 rise, the anti movement attributes it to a nuclear power plant should one be within 50 miles. It is plainly clear that a person living less than a 1/4 mile will receive more background radiation from naturally decaying sources such as wood, rock, sunlight etc. than from a nuclear power plant, this is why there are thermoluminescent detectors stations around power plants, to prove to agencies that any emitting energy from a nulcear plant is below natural surroundings. This is the cancer LIE. Catagorize yourself as you must but, facts need to be backed up with science to become reality, just throwing around words makes one just laugh.
You insult me personally by calling me a liar, and I ask if in future you would moderate your language and treat me and my opinions with respect.
In criticsing the “lies about cancer” you are criticising a peer reviewed report, the results of which have accepted by the German government. Even though one German state has said that they want nuclear power, the policy is in the hands of the federal government and its policy is clear. It is the KiKK report which has been a major influence on that policy. The major aspect the report is that it shows an increase in childhood cancers the nearer you live to a power station. This shows a probable cause. These results have now been replicated in the USA. The rates of childhood leukaemia in children living near US nuclear power stations have risen sharply over the past two decades when compared with national trends. Further evidence of the link to nuclear power is found in that the rates decrease near to stations which no longer operate. These results are also published in a peer review journal (http://www.wiley.com/bw/aims.asp?ref=0961-5423&site=1).
Sweden is consulting about a move to accept nuclear power but not all of the current coalition partners are decided and the bill to change policy is yet to go through parliament.
The UK government has said that it is in favour of nuclear power forming part of our generating mix, but only if operators bear the full cost of generation, including costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. Since no nuclear power station has ever made a profit unless substantially supported by government funds, I expect that no UK nuclear power stations will ever be built. New nuclear will also depend on parliament voting for a National Policy Statement on nuclear power and a public enquiry. Not a done deal.
The grid connections at Wyfla are essential for the Anglesey economy, regardless whether the electricty is generated by nuclear or biomass. If we do not replace the nuclear generating capacity at Wyfla by 2010, the local aluminium works will have to close. The earliest a nuke would be built is 2015.
Of course money is not object for nuclear development plans if the motivation to build them is not to do with generating electricity, but to create the material with which to build nuclear weapons.
I do not deny that the UK nuclear lobby has done a good job at persuading former environmental activists to accept the need for nuclear power, although Stephen Tindale makes it clear that he only sees nuclear power as an interim option, not beyond 2050. He is also a paid consultant to NPower renewables. Sounds good but NPower is a major nuclear generator and Stephen cannot be seen as independent on the issue.
Johnathon Porrit on the other hand, the Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, has said that nuclear power is not sustainable and to adopt nuclear will undermine the UKs ability to move towards a sustainable energy system by inhibiting the take up of renewables. The UK Green Party, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are all vehementently opoosed to new nuclear power.
You have some valid points, but you undermine your own case by indulging in personal insults.
The blatent lies seem to be pouring in from the anti’s. Germany has not stopped because of the lies of cancer, that is an ignorant lie made to scare the general public. The anto crowd seems to enjoy the lie campaign. Germany has realized the mistake of trying to rely on renewables and have decided to re-open the nuclear build arena. Will these anti’s reailze that we now have the internet and people can find out things on their own?...check it out…
Two more reactors under way in China
Official start to the Yangjiang nuclear plant
Grid connections have been arranged for a potential new nuclear plant at Wylfa, on the Welsh island of Anglesey. Some 3600 MWe of nuclear capacity could be added there.
Japan’s Chubu Electric Power Company decided today to build a new power reactor as a more economic option than modifying two older units
After the best part of three years’ political argument, court cases and public consultations the government has finally moved to re-start Britain’s nuclear energy programme.
France has more than 50 nuclear power plants, which produce 79% of its electricity output.
Iran currently produces no nuclear power, but it is in the process of building a nuclear power plant at Bushehr, with Russian help. One of plant’s reactors could go on stream in early 2008.
Bulgaria urges return to nuclear
The continuing squeeze on gas supplies in Europe has led a utility president to declare “The only long run solution for Italy is nuclear energy.“
Sweden Looks to Scrap Ban and Build Nuclear Reactors…
German State Calls for Extension of Nuclear Power
Nuclear plant financing plan sailing through legislature
Chu: U.S. needs more science research for green energy
Italian Renaissance: Italy Aims for Nuclear Revival, Too
New nuclear power plants will play a part in Sweden’s long-term energy future, after the coalition government scrapped old anti-nuclear policies.
After a 20-year ban, France helps Italy embrace nuclear energy
Nuclear energy seen as solution in Ireland
A unit of General Electric Co. said Monday it signed preliminary agreements with two government-owned companies in India to build nuclear reactors to help meet India’s energy production goals
Money no object for Indian reactor plans
Leading figures in Britain’s environmental movement today announced policy u-turns and called for the ‘embrace’ of nuclear power.
Sweden reverses its nuclear phase out
The Hungarian parliament has given overwhelming preliminary support to a government proposal to begin the detailed preparation for the construction of new nuclear generating capacity at the Paks plant.
Saskatchewan should build nuclear reactor report
EnergoNuclear SA has been formally established to undertake the construction, commissioning and operation of two new reactors at the Cernavoda nuclear power plant in Romania.
Leading figures in Britain’s environmental movement today announced policy u-turns and called for the ‘embrace’ of nuclear power.
The UK government has published a list of eleven potential sites for new nuclear power plants, which have been nominated through the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) process.
And will the anti’s stop posting the junk about expense, reliability and waste. Nuclear at this point is about our only avenue to keep up with demand and NOT put more junk ito the air. Renewables at this point in technology are unrealized, unreliable, and insufficient and talk about expense, check it out, it would cost us billions upon billions to explore, invest and build, and all that with little return. If you think we dont have the technology to diminish waste, you are touting the same old garbage as the anit’s have for 40 years. We have the technology and thats why we are not storing it at Yucca. We would have had capabilities by now if it wasnt for that moron Jimmy Carter. So yes nuclear is in a growth stage and should be in this country, the world is building plants, everywhere, we should not turn our heads to the technology. Our country needs the shot in the arm, the technology, the industry, the jobs, the energy. These antis still cannot stand it that after 40 years, they were wrong.
Yes, they are building nuclear reactors in some countries. In Finland, three years into the project to build OK3 it is threee years behind schedule and at least 1.5 billion Euros over budget, not including any penalties for late completion. STUK, the Finnish regulator, has “expressed concern” over the welds used in critical safety systems and the original concrete for the station was of such poor quality it had to be redone; hence the fact that it may as well not have been started! They are threatening not to licence the facility unless design changes are made.
Please will the pro-nuclear lobbyists STOP pushing out such blatantly insulting comments about posters lack of awareness about international dimensions of nuclear power. Following a study on childhood cancers in Germany the pro-nuclear government has been forced to call a halt all new nuclear build and concentrate on renewables. Sweden is building a deep level store for its existing nuclear waste, but has a policy not to generate any more. So ‘all countries’ are not building new nukes.
What is even more interesting is analysing the countries which are; including China, Pakistan, India and Iran. All motivated no doubt by the need to solve the energy crisis and prevent global climate change. Producing fissile material for nuclear weapons is not a consideration! You have to be kidding. I think the pronuclear lobby are the ones living in the fantasy world, not the sceptics.
The best part of the comments posted here is the lack of understanding to what is going on in the world around them. In all other countries around the world they are building Nuclear power plants. It is the cleanest, cheapest, and does far less harm to the environment versus coal or oil. Good job sheeple. I can wait to here the moaning and wailing when cap and trade starts and your electric bill doubles or triples. Meanwhile Europe, Asia, Japan etc will have built hundreds of nuclear power plants over the last 30 years. The original founder of Greenpeace has admitted the error of their ways and it is time for you to wake up or pay the big price tag.
If waste is a “resource for the future” how come no-one is using it at the moment? Nuclear waste contains some of the most toxic elements known to man. The nuclear industry must pay for its storage and disposal for the whole of its lifetime.
There is strong evidence that using nuclear power, when the energy cost of creating fuel, storing waste and decommissioning power stations at the end of life actually costs energy, not produces it! It is only if the industry does not bear these costs that nuclear is cost effective.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement