The French state-owned nuclear giant will have to contend with California’s strong anti-nuclear bias and its 30-year ban against new reactors
AREVA and Fresno Nuclear Energy Group (FNEG), LLC announced that both companies have signed a Letter of Intent to cooperate in the development of a nuclear power plant project in the Fresno, Calif, area. The agreement updates a relationship that has been maturing since early 2007.
According to a press release from Areva US for Dec 29, the two companies will work together on the initial development and permitting process for one or two AREVA 1,650 MW EPR plants. The project will start with preparation and submission of a technology-specific Early Site Permit (ESP) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and subsequent Combined License (COL) Application as a further step toward eventual plant construction.
“We are at the point where a major, well-qualified player must become part of our team,” said John Hutson, President of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, LLC. “AREVA shares our commitment to carbon-free, renewable energy; like us, they believe that nuclear is only part of the solution.”
In 2010, AREVA and FNEG said they will begin a series of studies to identify a feasible site for a new nuclear power plant in California.
FNEG is organized for the objective of providing an source of electricity to further develop the agricultural industry within the Central Valley of California.
Huston said FNEG and its affiliated organizations are actively pursuing legislative change and support for nuclear power in California through a campaign of public awareness and education.
Some history of the Fresno project
In July 2007 this blog interviewed John Huston. He is the former chairman of the Fresno Public Utility Commission and now head of the Fresno Nuclear group. He said Fresno’s building trades council paid for him to travel in 2007 to France and Finland to study and report on Areva’s EPR nuclear plants.
The major barrier to building the plant, then and now, is California's more than three-decade ban on new nuclear power plants. The state's environmental groups, led by the Sierra Club, are among the most rabidly anti-nuclear organizations in the nation. In 2007 they called the Fresno project “unrealistic” and garnered strong support from the Democratic party dominated state legislature.
It is a question of whether anything has changed with green groups though California Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, is now supporting nuclear energy as part of climate change legislation in Congress. She is joined there by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, also from a state with strong anti-nuclear sentiments. Maybe change is in the air after all?
What's different in 2010 than 2007?
The question will be how the Fresno group, and Areva, will succeed now after the setbacks of 2007? What mechanism will they use to seek change to California law? The state is for all intents and purposes ungovernable with intractable multi-billion dollar budget deficits and partisan passions that have locked both parties into virtual no-fly zones.
The challenge in 2007 will still be present in 2010, which is how to mobilize a state-wide initiated ballot measuure and not get buried by the national environmental groups. Worse, these groups may see it as an opportuity to make the ballot a test case on a national basis. They win if it loses. It could undercut political support for nuclear energy in other states. This would be a double hit for green groups and an outcome they would eagerly commit money and resource to achieve.
Overturning the ban failed in 2007
Efforts to fund and win a ballot initiative to overturn the state ban against new reactors failed in 2007. At the time election polls showed the state’s electorate 52% in favor, 42% against new nuclear plants in California. A July 2005 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed 39% in favor of building new nuclear power plants with 52% opposed so things were improving, but the ballot issue was abandoned in late 2007.
The reasons were a lack of broad and active political support for it beyond the Fresno area and a lack of money to pay for collection of signatures. Political analysts said the 10% spread in the 2007 poll was not enough to raise the millions needed to put the issue on the ballot.
Another reason may have been the close association of the ballot initiative with conservative Republican state legislator Chuck DeVore (left), from Orange County, who regularly got run over in the Democratic controlled legislature on this issue.
His opponents including Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, who said in November 2007 that the group was pleased with the failure of DeVore’s drive. In a predictable, and ecstatic, outburst of rhetoric pitch forking the politically dead effort, Hirsch said,
"Nuclear power is the most dangerous technology on earth, with risks of meltdowns, terrorist attack, proliferation, and leaking long-lived wastes. This humiliating reversal for a proposed initiative to revive it in California is a great victory for common sense. Now the state can focus on safe and sensible renewable solutions to global warming."
Economic impact of the reactor project
In 2007 Hutson said the proposed reactor project could bring thousands of well-paying jobs to the region. For the plant location, he said in 2007 the group targeted 3,000 city-owned acres south of Fresno. It hired a nuclear energy expert from Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL). The difference this time is the commitment to file for an ESP and COL with the NRC.
The Fresno group also has support from Robert Smittcamp, CEO of food-processing giant Lyons Magnus. Some of these circumstances may have changed over the past three years.
According to a statement from Areva in December 2009, a new U.S. EPR project would create up to 11,000 direct and indirect jobs during component manufacturing and plant construction. Additionally, it would create more than 400 permanent jobs and spur billions of dollars of investment into the regional economy.
Such a project would require hundreds of qualified suppliers and subcontractors. When complete, the 1,650 MW U.S. EPR nuclear plant would produce clean, reliable, CO2-free baseload electricity for more than 1.6 million households.
California currently has four nuclear reactors. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), they supply about 17% of the state’s energy needs. By comparison, 55% of the state’s energy for electricity comes from natural gas and coal.
# # #
14 comments:
I lived in Modesto when Rancho Seco was being built, then shut down and dismantled. The environmentalists' scary depiction of the vapor rising from the cooling towers as "radioactive" mist is still in my memory.
I'd like to think that the public has grown tired of the radical environmental agenda, blowing concerns out of proportion and ruining entire swaths of the state economy (reducing Delta water flows to farmers causing drought and loss of crops in favor of the Delta smelt). Perhaps I am misreading the tea leaves, but it's possible the silent majority of Californians won't fall victim to scare tactics this time.
Considering Gov. Davis was drummed out following "brown outs", the need for fresh water up and down state, and the demand for clean-air energy we might just be ripe for a surprise victory here.
Good luck to Areva and FNEG.
I have worked with Bob Smittcamp, and if he is behind an initiative in the central valley, I can assure you he will deliver. He has a very good grasp on cutting edge technology. About 5 years ago I installed a small Cogen facility in his plant. He is a very good man.
The legislature in Sacramento will never reverse the ban on nuclear power. A Fresno plant is interesting to talk about, but nothing is going to happen until there are real blackouts. Natural gas is currently seen as the 'clean' source of reliable power.
Pete, unfortunately, is correct. I was listed as signatory to the 2007 effort before it collapsed.
Dan is correct that Chuck De Vore's association with it helped kill it. I'm 180 degrees out from Chuck's politics generally but the same thing would of happened had I been in the state legislator.
Doc...no disagreement on Rancho Secco but there were real genuine problems that SMUD ran into that really helped kill it.
The biggest non-political problem with the Fresno proposal is water. It will be THE issue that the antis will use to kill it. 1 to 2 EPRs will use (although not consume) ALL the water in the San Joaquin river and then some. If they use towers it will result in the consumption of a lot of water albeit I'm not clear on the acre feet per year yet.
Water. the fact is taht there is not enough water for all the farmers that want to grow silly and really DUMB ASS crops like rice, almonds and high water use legumes and fruits. We are under no obligation to support the *single biggest user of water in the state* by ONE guy who was interviewed on 60 minutes last Sunday. it's insane unless we start the process of utilizing Gen IV reactors for desalination.
I'm an avid fisherman and we don't want OUR water to shipped to farmers and destroy our srtipped bass, salmon runs and other problems of saline inundation that would result from more water sent to the silly people in the south of the state.
David
David - Since it was 25 years ago, my memory of what SMUD did or didn't do is weak. Plus I am not involved in the energy industry - merely healthcare.
The dual (triple?) use of nukes for electricity generation and sea water desalination seems the most logical balance between meeting competing needs of water for consumption, for farming and growing crops, and for keeping the rivers and Delta properly fed.
I don't see new surface storage reservoirs being built due to environmentalist threats. Are we stuck between a rock and a dry place?
Let me just deal with you last point, the most pertinent. In short, yes. We use far too much water now, grabbing water from everywhere...90% of for farming. building reservoirs only mitigates the problem if you have unrestrained, totally and absolutely unregulated agricutltural development, etc etc. We don't have those nukes yet, or even close to, making the acre feet of water we need for the agriculture we have NOW.
In California there is only one issue: Delta water. The majority of that water goes to the ocean, but by doing so it established the unique semi-brine Delta water system. For ever drop of Delta water sent south grow kiwi fruit, it means a drop more of ocean water progressing into the Delta. So we should not send ANY more water than we do now, down south, and probably restrict what we have sent down.
Secondly, the more saline the water becomes it also ruins the thousnads of acre feet of fossil water from wells. This is the big issue with water authorities and farmers north of Fresno.
Thirdly, I'm actually FOR more reservoirs but not if what it is feeding is 'decided by the market', that is what caused the problem in the first place: overuse. There is MORE than enough water in California...for what the state is without the ridiculous crops they grow that demand so much water. I've seen studies that show if we only redid what we do grow without changing acreage...there would be no water crisis *at all*.
david
Dave & Doc. The plan is to use grey water from the sewage plant just like they do in Arizona. In Arizona they pipe the water 90 miles. Dick.
Dan Yurman provided his usual insightful analysis on this issue but did not succeed in identifying, in this article at least, a way to overturn the 30 year ban on new nuclear power plants in California. California code PRC25524.2 requires demonstrated""technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste" and thanks to the Obama Administration and Senator Reid of Nevada we are farther away from this goal than at any time in the last 25 years (no Yucca Mtn. Repository).
I share enthusiasm for new nuclear in California but with respect to the difficult matter of lifting the existing ban I do not see any new ideas or a way forward.
Political efforts over the last 30 years have left significant regulatory roadblocks to new nuclear power plants in the state.
The only remedy is to attack the political issue head-on - do the voters of the state of California want to permit new nuclear power to serve the state's needs or not?
We can not shrink from this fight! However, we can control the timing and chose the forum. The environmentalists are on the defensive so we should exploit the advantages of the offensive.
Frankly, I don't see Chuck DeVore's involvement as anything but a positive - he got up and made a public effort to challenge the status quo. Who else has been willing to do that?
The groundwork on a better energy policy must be prepared by us by engaging in public discussions. When the field is prepared, politicans standing for election will openly advocate an overturning of these restrictions.
I'd look to Steve Poisner in his race for governor to be a leader on this. DeVore will use this issue too in his race for the Senate.
Joseph, I'm glad Chuck De Vore did raise it, and worked with the Fresno group to publicize it. It's why named appeared on the petition web site.
But reality is that Chucks politics generally come with a huge amount of baggage. In *exactly* the same way SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's does. It comes with it's own poison pill built in.
Chuck will have to win on other issues besides nuclear and while he could, it's unlikely he will. Stranger things have happened in California, we had Ronald Reagan as Gov, then turned around voted for Jerry Brown. I will say Chuck chose a good target in Barbara Boxer. If he went after Dianne Feinstein it would be "Chuck who?". At any rate, he has to get through the Republican Party primary first.
There appears to be a slight retreat in the popularity of nuclear in the state now, we'll see how that is going to play out of if its true. Regardless only an initiative can overcome the reactionary ban on nuclear energy here.
DeVore's opponent in the Republican primary is Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP.
People here in Silicon Valley still spit at the mention of her name. She ruined one of the foundational companies of the state with her management. The national Republican party likes her because she can self-finance and because the NRP is reluctant to change strategy from moderation/compromise to conservative confrontation.
DeVore is a unabashed conservative but nowhere as wacky as Newsom, at least to my eyes here in San Jose. DeVore should be able to attract support from the remnants of the state's aerospace industry.
I agree that no candidate will be able to ride a wave of nuclear advocacy to office in California. He'll have to have other cards to play. In any case, the state legislature will remain Democratic even after reapportionment.
No republican is going to succeed electorically in california, that is obvious, even from across the atlantic - but it is also irrelevant. One of californias major political problems: IE, the ballot process being able to force things on the legislature, is, in this case, a strength.
It is not nessesary to convince californica to elect pro-nuclear politicians, areva can instead just appeal directly to the electorate to trust them over their politicians. This should be a much easier sell.
"No republican is going to succeed electorically in california, that is obvious"
Governor Swartzenegger, Insurance Commissioner Poizner, several Congressmen, and a third of the legislature are Republicans. Republicans also hold county and city offices although those are nominally non-partisian by state law.
2010 will be a tough election for Democrats.
Joe, I don't mean on the basis generally but as if nuclear is going to be the issue. You comment is rather glib if you think about it:
"a third of the legislature are Republicans". Where in the US do Repubs hold only 1/3 of the legislature? This is terrible for them and they know it. The Governor is basically *repudiated* by the entire US republican party at almost every level. Republican registration is very small, generally.
I agree 100% with Thomas. The Fresno Nuclear Group, which is essentially a law firm right now, and Areva, have to make the appeal non-partisan and pro-climate change or it will go no where in this, the Golden State.
Post a Comment