"setbacks stem from a delay in fabrication and delivery of modules from Chicago Bridge & Iron out of Lake Charles, La., SCE&G officials said. They said 100 out of 146 project milestones have been completed, but many of them are being delayed because of a large structural module called a CAO1 that has not been delivered by CB&I.
SCE&G officials said as many as half of the construction milestones could fall outside the 18-month construction window allowed by state regulators under the existing Summer guidelines.
The delay revealed last year was estimated by SCE&G to cost about $278 million. In April, the S.C. Energy Users Committee and the Sierra Club took SCE&G to the Supreme Court asking that those cost delays be borne by SCE&G, not ratepayers, after the PSC ruled the charges could be passed off to the public."
"Located at the geographic center of North America, North Dakota has a continental climate characterized by large temperature variations, irregular precipitation, plentiful sunshine, low humidity, and nearly continuous wind. Serious flooding caused by heavy rainfall occurs occasionally." http://www.eia.gov/state/analy...
Not ideal for nuclear power with the flooding risk.
SCE&G, which is building the plants with state-owned utility Santee Cooper and has a 55 percent stake in the project, won regulatory approval to raise rates annually for its current customers to help pay for the construction of the nuclear power plants. SCE&G ratepayers already have ponied up numerous increases for the nuclear project, the latest one approved in May.
“We have warned from the start of this risky project that it would face significant delays and cost increases, so there is unfortunately no big surprise in SCE&G’s stunning news,” said Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch (SRS Watch). “SCE&G ratepayers, already facing seven rate increases to pay in advance for the nuclear project, will likely take it on the chin by the cost increases due to the announced delays.”
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/0...
"...ok with trolling by the those who wish to defend christianity in vigorous manner." It is rhetorical since Christianity is spread through practice, particularly forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
The Navy likes its efficiency. And, the methane is a drop in replacement for natural gas. The UK already has a natural gas infrastructure. So, it all looks much much less expensive than nuclear power. The environmental impact is benign of course since it is carbon neutral.
The Navy seems to have this kind of thing covered. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... If the gas turbine is 60% efficient, then this will be nearly twice as efficient as a nuclear plant. And the wind resource is not lacking. "The United Kingdom has been estimated to have over a third of Europe's total offshore wind resource, which is equivalent to three times the electricity needs of the nation at current rates of electricity consumption." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Yes, but it takes a while for the penny to drop that synthesizing methane using wind power would be more reliable. Nuclear seems more like a fire pit in a Saxon shelter than that.
I think England is culturally tied to the idea of keeping the home fires burning which give nuclear power a kind of hold on them that technically it does not merit. That may explain the huge price they are willing to pay.
"The reactor problems highlight that most of Britain’s nuclear installations, which generate about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, are approaching the end of their lives. The four EDF reactors under investigation were commissioned in 1983 and are officially scheduled to be removed from service in 2019.
EDF Energy had been expected to seek extensions to the lives of the plants, but if the problems turn out to be too expensive to be worth fixing, then they might end up being permanently closed sooner than expected.
“If this fault is as a result of the aging of the unit, this has potential implications for the operational life of these four units and, potentially, others as well,” said Antony Froggatt, a nuclear analyst at Chatham House, a London research organization."
As wind builds out, it will provide more electricity than is needed at times. Using that to produce methane provides a drop-in replacement for fossil methane. This is being included in carbon emissions reduction stratagems these days. http://arstechnica.com/science...
"The Olkiluoto project in Finland is three times over budget and 9 years late, while the Flamanville project in France is 4 years late." http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/59...
Solar panels last for centuries. The just need refurbishing after 30 years or so. Nuclear plants apparently can't survive refurbishing. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
This seems quite immature. In flood damage prevention, we adjust zoning laws. Nuclear safety seems far behind that. Limiting density to one dwelling per three acres within 15 miles of a nuclear plant would provide for rapid and organized evacuation. The evacuation at Fukushima killed many people owing to emergency preparedness being overwhelmed. We should close all nuclear plants in high property value or high population areas to really limit risk.
"it would mean that the world could sustain its food production at current levels indefinitely" Sort of. We still need to get the effects of the faster nitrogen cycle under control. Right now, more corn means fewer shrimp as a huge dead zone develops in the Gulf of Mexico. The corn then feeds pigs in Pennsylvania and the nitrogen in the manure wrecks the oyster and crab harvest in the Chesapeake. All this can be fixed, but since one form of food production is stealing from another, the sustainability is in question for now.
Slashdot Mirror
"setbacks stem from a delay in fabrication and delivery of modules from Chicago Bridge & Iron out of Lake Charles, La., SCE&G officials said. They said 100 out of 146 project milestones have been completed, but many of them are being delayed because of a large structural module called a CAO1 that has not been delivered by CB&I.
SCE&G officials said as many as half of the construction milestones could fall outside the 18-month construction window allowed by state regulators under the existing Summer guidelines.
The delay revealed last year was estimated by SCE&G to cost about $278 million. In April, the S.C. Energy Users Committee and the Sierra Club took SCE&G to the Supreme Court asking that those cost delays be borne by SCE&G, not ratepayers, after the PSC ruled the charges could be passed off to the public."
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/0...
"Located at the geographic center of North America, North Dakota has a continental climate characterized by large temperature variations, irregular precipitation, plentiful sunshine, low humidity, and nearly continuous wind. Serious flooding caused by heavy rainfall occurs occasionally." http://www.eia.gov/state/analy...
Not ideal for nuclear power with the flooding risk.
SCE&G, which is building the plants with state-owned utility Santee Cooper and has a 55 percent stake in the project, won regulatory approval to raise rates annually for its current customers to help pay for the construction of the nuclear power plants. SCE&G ratepayers already have ponied up numerous increases for the nuclear project, the latest one approved in May. “We have warned from the start of this risky project that it would face significant delays and cost increases, so there is unfortunately no big surprise in SCE&G’s stunning news,” said Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch (SRS Watch). “SCE&G ratepayers, already facing seven rate increases to pay in advance for the nuclear project, will likely take it on the chin by the cost increases due to the announced delays.” Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/0...
"...ok with trolling by the those who wish to defend christianity in vigorous manner." It is rhetorical since Christianity is spread through practice, particularly forgiveness and turning the other cheek.
It always comes down to insults unless you will agree that Adm. Rickover was a traitor.
Quite a few computer systems used by climate scientists get targeted as well.
The Navy likes its efficiency. And, the methane is a drop in replacement for natural gas. The UK already has a natural gas infrastructure. So, it all looks much much less expensive than nuclear power. The environmental impact is benign of course since it is carbon neutral.
The Navy seems to have this kind of thing covered. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... If the gas turbine is 60% efficient, then this will be nearly twice as efficient as a nuclear plant. And the wind resource is not lacking. "The United Kingdom has been estimated to have over a third of Europe's total offshore wind resource, which is equivalent to three times the electricity needs of the nation at current rates of electricity consumption." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Yes, but it takes a while for the penny to drop that synthesizing methane using wind power would be more reliable. Nuclear seems more like a fire pit in a Saxon shelter than that.
I think England is culturally tied to the idea of keeping the home fires burning which give nuclear power a kind of hold on them that technically it does not merit. That may explain the huge price they are willing to pay.
$27 billion for Hinkley Point....
"The reactor problems highlight that most of Britain’s nuclear installations, which generate about 20 percent of the country’s electricity, are approaching the end of their lives. The four EDF reactors under investigation were commissioned in 1983 and are officially scheduled to be removed from service in 2019. EDF Energy had been expected to seek extensions to the lives of the plants, but if the problems turn out to be too expensive to be worth fixing, then they might end up being permanently closed sooner than expected. “If this fault is as a result of the aging of the unit, this has potential implications for the operational life of these four units and, potentially, others as well,” said Antony Froggatt, a nuclear analyst at Chatham House, a London research organization."
Because it is wrong.
Not quite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As wind builds out, it will provide more electricity than is needed at times. Using that to produce methane provides a drop-in replacement for fossil methane. This is being included in carbon emissions reduction stratagems these days. http://arstechnica.com/science...
The cost data were incorrect so the study got it wrong. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
"The Olkiluoto project in Finland is three times over budget and 9 years late, while the Flamanville project in France is 4 years late." http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/59...
Missed that. The date were outdated. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
Solar panels last for centuries. The just need refurbishing after 30 years or so. Nuclear plants apparently can't survive refurbishing. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
The input data were badly out of date. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am... Wind is the cheapest.
Exactly correct. Using correct number reversed the order. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
There were nine number in the analysis which were badly outdated. Doing it right reverses the order. http://www.forbes.com/sites/am...
This seems quite immature. In flood damage prevention, we adjust zoning laws. Nuclear safety seems far behind that. Limiting density to one dwelling per three acres within 15 miles of a nuclear plant would provide for rapid and organized evacuation. The evacuation at Fukushima killed many people owing to emergency preparedness being overwhelmed. We should close all nuclear plants in high property value or high population areas to really limit risk.
"it would mean that the world could sustain its food production at current levels indefinitely" Sort of. We still need to get the effects of the faster nitrogen cycle under control. Right now, more corn means fewer shrimp as a huge dead zone develops in the Gulf of Mexico. The corn then feeds pigs in Pennsylvania and the nitrogen in the manure wrecks the oyster and crab harvest in the Chesapeake. All this can be fixed, but since one form of food production is stealing from another, the sustainability is in question for now.
The trick is to gather the carbon dioxide efficiently. The Navy has an interesting method. http://blogs.discovermagazine....