|
Growing South Carolina's nuclear power source |
|
|
|
Friday, 24 October 2008 |
|
Page 2 of 3
Tom Clements, Friends of the Earth’s Southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator, has a different perspective. In speaking to hydrologists at the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, Clements said he learned that they have found that the Broad River is already stressed by usage from North and South Carolina.
“As each nuclear reactor uses about 20 million gallons of water per day, the impact to lakes and rivers could be severe. The Broad River is now facing both the Duke and South Carolina Electric & Gas reactor proposals, an unprecedented threat to any river in the United States.”
Clements also noted that, in SCE&G’s 200-page application, “their analysis of efficiency and energy conservation is ludicrous. The company is simply ignoring that the cheapest thing to do is invest in efficiency and conservation.”
But water consumption is not the biggest hurdle facing the construction of what the utility estimates is a $9.8 billion project — $5.4 billion of which SCE&G will be responsible for, as it will share the total cost with Santee Cooper.
Though the V.C. Summer plant has been operating for 20 years with what Yanity says is a “safe, reliable and affordable track record,” he says the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine has contributed to a negative view of the technology.
“We are only the second company in the country (to apply for a permit) in 30 years,” he said.
Attitudes could be loosening some, though. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has a dozen applications sitting before it for new nuclear units but has not approved any of them.
Scott Shaw, communications manager for nuclear power plants at Westinghouse, said the AP1000 model proposed for the plant went through “the most rigorous testing and review process and an assessment by the NRC. They are our police.”
Shaw said that the current pressurized water reactors are safe but that the AP1000 is safer because it uses passive safety systems that rely on no A/C power and no intervention by reactor personnel. “It will safely shut down by itself,” he said, reducing the chances of human error.
The AP1000’s design has gone through 16 revisions as documented by the commission. As of February, Westinghouse had submitted 122 technical reports for staff review.
Shaw says that’s fairly normal. “It is not a major change to the design; the changes are to better comply with NRC guidelines and regulations,” he said.
Though Clements agrees that design changes are part of the process, he cautions that, without a solid, standard reactor design, which is what the AP1000 was supposed to be, construction costs could escalate rapidly. “This is the same problem we faced in the ’80s,” he said, noting, “Every reactor was different and cost shot through the roof. Right now, it is unclear if there is going to be a standard design to keep cost lower. This issue is making investors and Wall Street extremely nervous.”
Noel Kane-Maguire, professor of chemistry at Furman University, believes this new reactor design is a strong one and said that, in addition to exploring a diverse menu of energy sources, “nuclear power should be a serious ‘look at’ in view of the current situation.”
|
