Florida View

NRC review of LNP DEIS documents, Crystal River, 23 September 2010

To read comments submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of the Foundation arising from the review meeting on 23 September 2010, to view the three comments submitted click here, click here and click here.

The comments submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have also been sent to the Secretary for Energy, Dr Richard Chu, and to the Florida Public Services Commission in connection with their annual review of the Progress Energy Florida, Determination of Need and long term planning as required by Order Number PSC-08-0518-FOF-EI Issued: August 12, 2008. Abbreviated highlights have also been submitted to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, at The White House. Details are appended below:

1. Industry lobbyists have so amended law to provide for profit of Utility Corporations as a calculated percentage. Electricity utilities opting for the most costly (nuclear) venture having excessive fiscal costs often supported by loan guarantees, create conflict of interest. Returns to shareholders, bondholders and executives are offset by raising unit costs of electricity charged to consumers. Law has also been modified permitting utilities to levy consumers with added charges to repair existing nuclear facilities and recover capital expense of new nuclear plants before being built or even licensed. These consumer on-costs appear to be delegated taxation. Moreover the much higher cost of electricity from Nuclear power will likely hinder sales into wholesale markets

2. Systemic generation inefficiencies exist when there is no way to store electricity generated in times of off peak or lower seasonal demand. When viewed as actual annual kWh(e) output achieved compared to "Summer rate capability" the supply side loss is highly significant. These losses could be recovered by adopting Renewable Electrolysis (RE).

   In RE, electrical energy is captured and stored as compressed hydrogen gas (released by electrolysis) which can be re-converted into electricity using fuel cells, to meet up-turns in demand as base load. When complemented progressively by new renewable energy sources - wind or solar photo voltaic arrays - GHG intensive plants can be phased out. Modular RE units could be sited near substations serving population centers.

3. No nuclear plant should be sited in a region with poorly confined aquifer systems. Harmful radionuclides released from both gaseous and liquid effluent pathways penetrate into and accumulate in groundwater over the operating life of the plant and beyond. We consume it as drinking water and eat fish, meat and vegetables which have assimilated the water-born toxins, to the detriment of our health and even as a cause of deaths.

4. The extended recession we suffer and the rising costs and delays to nuclear projects have negated the substance of the original petition for determination of need. The setback may be countered by adopting RE as opposed to trying to breathe life into technology which died decades ago. Jobs for residents will be created with RE as opposed to importing labor for building nuclear plants. Costs of RE plants are measured in $millions not $billions.

View additional pages on Nuclear Energy at:

• Business Financial View
• Community Health View
• Ecology View
• National View