The staff of the Tennessee Valley Authority is recommending that one of the original reactors at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant be finished in the next decade at a projected cost of up to $4 billion.
In the final environmental assessment of the unfinished twin-reactor plant in Alabama, TVA concludes that completing the Unit 1 reactor at Bellefonte would be cheaper than pursuing the alternative of building a next generation reactor on the same site.
Bellefonte was once targeted as the pioneer site for the new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, but Plant Vogtle in Georgia is now first in line for that new design and TVA wants to put off building such a new reactor.
In the environmental impact statement released this month, TVA estimates it will need another 7,500 megawatts of power by 2020 to make up for growth in the Tennessee Valley and also needs to shut down some of its aging coal fleet.
“Completing a nuclear unit is one option that would help us meet our customers’ growing needs and provide a reliable and safe power source at significantly less cost per installed kilowatt than other generation options,” TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said today. “At the same time, additional nuclear generation leads to a reduction of our carbon footprint.”
Anti-nuclear activists on Monday said Bellefonte was designed and built decades ago and some key equipment was gutted from the plant in 2006 when TVA initially decided to scrap the reactor.
TVA started work on Bellefonte in 1974 but halted construction on the Unit 1 reactor in 1988 when the demand for new power slowed.
“TVA simply doesn’t need to take the risk and spend the money for this plant if it would do more to encourage energy conservation,” said Louise Gorenflo, a member of the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team and one of the members of TVA’s task force helping prepare the utility’s power plans for the future.
For complete details, see tomorrow’s Times Free Press
Chattanooga Times Free Press May 24, 2010
Creatively speaking, it is a challenge to backyard mechanics to take a Model A Ford and turn it into a roaring roadster with or without rumble seat.
But it remains basically, a Model A Ford. All the doodads and modifications including a souped up engine and big wheels cannot change its heritage. Henry probably would be shocked.
A 1974 design of a partially completed nuclear plant does not bode well for conversion of it to hotrod status. Spare parts, for example, could be a challenge also (but of course TVA saved all of those parts it cannibalized from it in the 1980s, ha; another bad management decision).
It would be like taking an old upright Underwood typewriter and converting it to a computer, they both have a keyboard and there the resemblance ends.
And at an estimated $4 billion cost to convert and complete Unit 1 Bellefonte? We’ve all heard of “rehabilitating” a kitchen, bathroom, or a whole house. Guess what? The estimated costs are always higher because of the unforeseen. Add that element to the usual low-balling of estimates by the TVA and voila! Add a couple billion more.
The excuse that there is more demand for TVA electricity is false; to use the reactor to replace worn out Model A’s is more plausible. A third alternative would be to nurse the old coal-fired units along maybe another 10 to 15 years. That would be the cheapest route.
TVA throws those billion dollar figures around as if nobody has to pay for their misadventures. What if TVA had a “pay go” system in place? But TVA shows no inclination to keep their plants in tiptop shape, to be more economical in their operations. But wait! Wasn’t that one of the reasons - for TVA to be more business-like – when Congress adopted the new board and management structure in 2005? That part of it has become a complete fiasco.
Out with the old! And out with the “new” old too!
Ernest Norsworthy emnorsworthy@earthlink.net http://norsworthyopinion.com
Or login with:
New Account