Monday, August 17, 2009

Green and Clean

Comment Up

Green and clean--that’s what I told the Commission several weeks ago when they were voting on sending a letter to FMPA against nuclear energy. Actually, since we are exiting FMPA's ARP, the City of Lake Worth does not want to pay towards two nuclear power reactors in Levy County. This, however, has nothing to do with whether nuclear power is not a clean energy source as well as safe.

As you know, the Florida Legislature approved the report by Progress Energy (formerly Florida Power) to build nuclear power plants in Levy County. They have already received an approved Needs Analysis of building nuclear and the only hold-up now is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

We are locked into FMPA for almost five more years and we will, as one of its members, have to pay for one of the largest transmission projects in the history of our State. The cost, as reported previously, will be close to $17 billion dollars. By the time the project starts and finishes, who knows what the final cost will be to Lake Worth taxpayers.

I have asked the City Commission on at least three occasions to hire the best contract attorney around to find a loophole that will allow us to exit quicker before we are locked into paying for these nuclear energy reactors that we will never use and FMPA’s members will be the only benefactors after they struggle for decades to pay the price.

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant

In truth, the reactors are a great step forward in the clean energy goal and will be a great step in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Lake Worth already owns at least one share of nuclear, perhaps two in St. Lucie and we have our own generation. Nuclear power is now the cheapest source of power. No one can understand why our electric is more expensive than several other municipalities that also have their own utility plants. Blame it on FMPA. I always drift back to management. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. Do the commercial businesses even know how badly they are getting screwed per kwh?

Nuclear Power Plant Applications

From someone in the energy industry:
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the only two nuclear mishaps that I am aware and the safety issues have gotten so much better since then. Besides, there is a new way of splitting an atom that eliminates all hazardous materials. As the world develops, nuclear will become the primary source of power.

We have more than enough natural gas, coal and other fossil fuels to power our economy for hundreds of years.......but the liberals refuse to permit us to use it.
Nuclear is the future and nine protesters in Tallahassee won't nix it. Here on a local level, we must bring costs under control.
at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousAugust 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM

    Nuclear is extremely expensive and will increase our power bills. There is no location for nuclear waste. There was a cancer cluster near the FPL power plant.

    Solar and wind are cheaper and provide power on site. They are a better alternative.

    Drew Martin

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousAugust 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    The World Nuclear Assn says-

    Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

    Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
    In assessing the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are taken into account.
    The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.

    Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

    See also the December 2005 World Nuclear Association report (pdf 310 kB) The New Economics of Nuclear Power.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousAugust 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    Response to comment #1.

    Neither wind, nor solar, are competitive unless subsidized by the government (i.e., we taxpayers). T. Boone Pickens discovered this when his Texas wind farm idea fell to the ground earlier this spring.

    There is, however, a new wind technology called Maglev which may permit wind power to become competitive, but that has not yet been attempted in the states. (See link below)

    To my knowledge, solar power is not an economically viable technology.

    Nuclear power has the added benefit of being one of the least expensive methods of providing fresh water from our most abundant source....salt water. One nuclear power plant can supply millions of gallons of fresh water, thereby helping to eliminate the current water shortage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Qs2gFlt-o

    ReplyDelete