Nuclear plant to wipe out 765 acres of wetlands

[bananas]

Nuclear plant to wipe out 765 acres of wetlands

By Craig Pittman and Asjylyn Loder, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Saturday, May 9, 2009

Progress Energy's plans to build a $17 billion nuclear plant in rural Levy County will do more than just add advance charges to its customers' utility bills.

The utility's plans also calls for wiping out about 765 acres of wetlands, according to a public notice posted recently by the agency that issues federal wetland permits, the Army Corps of Engineers.

Yet Progress Energy plans to do little to replace their beneficial effect on the underground aquifer — even as the new power plant slurps up more than 1 million gallons of water a day from that source. At its peak, the plant could use more than 5 million gallons a day.

<snip>

To build on such a soggy site, the utility plans to put up an impervious wall around the construction to divert water, then truck in enough fill dirt to put the plant 8 feet above the ground.

<snip>

The construction will wipe out cypress swamps, forested wetlands, bottomland swamp and freshwater marshes, according to corps documents.

<snip>

[AnOhioan]

1. This just seems like folly to me

They plan on building a wall then filling it with dirt to raise the site above the floodplain??

Then the unbelievable comment regarding the wetland destruction:

"But the plan does not call for adding any newly created wetlands or restoring any drained wetlands. There will be no acre-for-acre replacement for the swamps and marshes that are paved over by the power plant.

Instead, Progress Energy intends to make the remaining wetlands on its property — and an adjacent parcel also full of planted pines — work better."

Really? By putting a nuclear power plant in the middle of it all? Talk about arrogance.

[Optical.Catalyst]

2. That adjacent parcel is where the 1,000,000 gallons of hot water will go to cool off

A million gallons a day of hot water will benefit any swamp. Just ask anybody living around the Savanna River in South Carolina about how nuclear reactors can improve the ecosystem in a swamp.

[ladjf]

3. The stupidity of the human race has no limits. nt

[GliderGuider]

4. The stupidity of the human race is self-limiting... nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. As stupid as this sounds

We keep packing more people into Florida. And that power has to come from somewhere. Is there anyplace to build a new baseload plant that is not in a swamp?

So which is the greater Sin?
A) To build a power plant in a Swamp
B) To allow population to grow to where the powerplant became necessary

[bananas]

7. Dan Yurman's "Baloney detection for nuclear new builds"

Back in 2007, Dan Yurman, a pro-nuke who writes for Fuel Cycle Weekly magazine, wrote a "baloney detection" test:

Baloney detection for nuclear new builds

<snip>

* How does the claim fit with what we know about the way the world works? Is the firm a "first mover" plants in the U.S. which will build at an existing reactor sites to gain competitive cost advantages using infrastructure already in place. "Greenfield" sites are exciting prospects but unlikely.

<snip>

This project doesn't pass his baloney test.
It's not just "greenfield", it's "greenfield swampland".

The purpose of the first wave of new reactors is to find out how much they really cost, and to shake out first-of-a-kind problems, so that the second wave of new reactors will go smoothly. That's why only a few reactors will be built in the first wave. By building out in a swamp, they're not only adding extra costs, they are delaying the second wave of reactor construction. Construction delays have already started, and they haven't even started construction. That's a bad sign. At some point in the future, as more delays and cost overruns occur, there's a good chance they'll stop throwing good money after bad and cancel the project. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the risk of default on new plants as "very high - well above 50 per cent", and that was when the cost estimates were much lower. This isn't a decision to build a reactor, it's a decision to flip a coin; if it comes up "heads", then in ten years you have a shiny new reactor and billions of dollars of debt to pay off; if it comes up "tails", then in ten years you have billions of dollars of debt to pay off, but no reactor and no electricity. Ratepayers would have been protected if the ban on CWIP wasn't overturned.

To answer your question, here's what Florida could do instead:
"If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it?"
Part 1: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/18/obama-replace-dirty-coal-nuclear-efficency-cogeneration-wind-solar-csp-biomass-cofiring/
Part 2: http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/if-obama-stops-dirty-coal-what-will-replace-it-part-2-an-introduction-to-biomass-cofiring/

[djysrv]

10. re; Baloney

I appreciate being cited here, but the application of the citation isn't relevant. My blog post on "baloney detection" for new nuclear builds relates to the economic basis for the project.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/10/baloney-detection-for-nuclear-new.html

That's why the first example in my blog post is a penny stock outfit that until only this past January was not even registered with the SEC, but claimed to be engaged in building a 1,600 MW nuclear power plant in Idaho. That's baloney.

My essay does not address environmental issues. However, as far as wetlands are concerned, readers of this forum need to consider the size of the cooling pond to be used by the twin AP1000 reactor plant. It will be measured in 1,000s of acres and will recharge the aquifer at a far higher rate than the 800 or so acres of wetlands that will be lost.

The issue of Construction While in Progress is a reasonable approach to financing new nuclear reactors if the Public Utilities Commission is independent and conducts effective oversight of cost recovery claims. Instead of attacking the reactor, or other large energy generation projects, you need to focus on the quality of government you want to work for your interests.

One way or the other, Florida will need new baseload electricity generation capacity and you cannot supply it with wind or solar. If you do not build nuclear you are left with choices for natural gas or coal. Both contribute to global warming.

Either way people living in Florida are going to want their air conditioning and flat panel TVs. The question is what's at the other end of socket supplying the electricity.

[Optical.Catalyst]

8. Build a new baseload plant? How about we start extensive conservation programs today

With a working budget of 17 billion dollars, we could put half into conservation technologies that are working for us today, and the other half into research and development of clean, renewable energy for tomorrow. In the ten years it takes to build the new plant (which may never be completed anyway) we would be way ahead of the curve.

[pscot]

6. Assholes rule

Cynicism no longer works for me. I'm just too pissed off.

[NickB79]

9. Anyone have an idea how many MW would be generated by 765 acres of solar panels?

I'm not being argumentative; I was just truly curious.

On edit: never mind, I think I found my answer here: http://solarbythewatt.com/2009/03/09/solar-energy-land-area-efficiency-or-how-much-acres-per-mw-kwp-per-acre/

It looks like 765 acres would generate 60-170 MW at peak output, depending on the type of solar collectors installed.