in

Ads

Advertise Here!
Check out our Media Kit!

Nuclear Street Media Kit

Explore Brokk Equipment - Click Here! 

This Blog

Syndication

Archives

Nuclear Power Industry News

Nuclear Power Industry News is a blog about utilities, companies, suppliers in the nuclear energy market.

NINA Responds To CPS Legal Action

Nuclear Innovation North America Responds to CPS Energy Lawsuit

 - By Stephen Heiser -

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA) has responded in a legal filing to the lawsuit CPS Energy filed on Sunday, December 6, 2009.

“NINA’s goal is to work with our partners to find mutually agreeable solutions, not to file lawsuits against them,” said Steve Winn, NINA Chief Executive Officer. “That said, the CPS Energy lawsuit against NINA requires a legal response and we filed our response today. Our mutual goal should now be to withdraw these lawsuits and move forward with effective discussions. We are prepared to act simultaneously with CPS Energy to withdraw our respective filings.”

The focus of ongoing discussions has been on reaching a viable outcome that continues to meet the needs of San Antonio utility customers and preserves the value of CPS Energy’s investments and the strength of the project.

“NINA is not in a position to buy CPS Energy’s share of the STP expansion for cash,” said Winn. “However, there are a variety of options available to NINA and CPS Energy that would protect CPS Energy from losing its investment and help meet San Antonio’s future need for electricity, should the utility decide to pursue a strategy other than full participation in the project or the litigation that was recently initiated by CPS Energy.

“We want to explore these options to ensure a satisfactory solution for all. Stability and continued momentum of the project is the best way to preserve the value of the investments in the expansion as well as the enormous value to Texas. STP 3&4 will create 4,000 to 6,000 construction jobs while the units are being built, 800 full-time jobs operating the units for the life of the plant and an economic multiplier effect that generates six to seven more jobs across the state for every job at the site, adding another 4,000 to 6,000 permanent jobs in Texas. In 2006, construction of the two units was estimated to generate $9.2 billion in business activity across the state with $2 billion per year in spending once the units are operational,” added Winn.

While the cost of new nuclear may not fit in the CPS Energy rate structure, NINA continues to believe that the cost of the two units will continue to move lower as presented in November 2009 and to be very competitive to meet future demand safely, economically and efficiently.

In addition to disclaiming the allegations asserted in CPS Energy’s lawsuit, NINA’s filing maintains that CPS Energy is in breach of the project’s agreements by improperly delaying the project. To support the stability and momentum of the expansion, the filing also requests that a determination be made either requiring CPS Energy to continue to fund the project or declaring that it has withdrawn from it.

“Time is of the essence in making the determination of whether CPS Energy is in or out of the project,” said Winn. “The Department of Energy is only going to select two projects for loan guarantees. STP was number one and now is second with another project close behind. Further delays could move STP to third place, losing the loan guarantee and reducing the value of both parties’ investment to zero.”

Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA) is a partnership between NRG Energy (88%) and Toshiba (12%) focused on developing new nuclear expansion projects using Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology—the only advanced nuclear technology certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has been built on time and on budget. NINA is currently developing the 2,700 megawatt South Texas Project expansion with San Antonio’s CPS Energy and the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company. NINA is also exploring other development opportunities to employ ABWR in additional projects across North America.

Comments

 

Eric said:

Speaking as a resident of San Antonio and CPS ratepayer, we can't afford nuclear power and I mean that in every sense; cost, waste, water, environment, and dependence on foreign suppliers of uranium.  Let's get off the nuclear teat and move toward real energy independence and environmental sustainability.  

December 29, 2009 9:49 AM
 

steveheiser said:

Interesting perspective.  You may want to read some of the Randy Brich columns on the site for the other side of the story.  As a former anti-nuke advocate, I invite you to examine both sides carefully and then of course make up your own mind.   Good luck!

December 29, 2009 9:56 AM
 

Eric said:

Steve, I have looked at all sides . . . doing my own research since it is very difficult to trust anything anyone involved with the nuclear industry says.  There is a natural bias toward nuclear if you have a nuclear degree.  And we can never forget that the nuclear industry was born in secrecy and grew up in deceit.  Here in San Antonio, not much has changed.  We've been lied to since day one of this nuclear mess.

But let me get back to your original question, have I looked at both sides?  I don't take sides.  If nuclear made sense I'd support it.  It doesn't.  Here are  a few reasons why.

When our local utiliy company, CPS, was saying that the cost of building two new nuclear power plants would be $5.4 billion two years ago, I did some cursory research on the net and immediately came to understand that this was a bunch of bull.  Estimates were $22 - 26 billion from folks who were not getting a pay check from the nuclear industry or energy field.  Today?  We are at $18.2 billion (admitted by the utility) and, by the time construction were to begin, we would probably be well over $26 billion.  From a business point of view, it is insane for San Antonio to be involved with anythig with this type of price tag.  Unless, of course, you have your cup under the nuclear money spigot.

Second, what about the waste?  Some of this crap has a lifespan of over 1 million years.  Have we gone insane?  First solve the waste issue, then let's talk nuclear.  I learned that one of the reasons Somalian pirates exist today is that European countries have been dumping nuclear waste off the Samali coast and killed all of the fishing industry.  The Somalies are just getting even.  And trying to make a living.  True.  

What about uranium mining?  It is one of the filthiest mining processes known to man.  Most of it comes from underdeveloped countries so we will be hostage to third world countries for our energy sources. . . again!  Plus, the environmental damage is enormous.  

Water?  Not a good picture for south Texas were droughts are common and water a preacious commodity.  

What's the other side of the debate?  Go nuclear and don't busy your pretty little head with all this stuff?  

December 29, 2009 5:38 PM
 

Bob Bromm said:

Steve,

OK, so you don't want to go nuclear.  I can accept that, even though I strongly disagree with you.  The Houston area electrical demand is growing rapidly as:

1)  The population increases

2)  The country moves from gas-powered vehicles to plug-in hybrid vehicles (electric cars with a gas-powered emergency generator) to reduce oil consumption.

3)  Employment increases

What are your alternatives for generating large amounts of baseload electricity?

1)  Coal?  Yuck!

2)  Natural Gas?  There's an abundance of it at the moment, but there was an abundance of it a few decades ago too.  Then there was a shortage and the price quadrupled or more.  My expectation is that boom and bust cycle will continue.

3)  Solar and Wind?  Nice ideas, but quite expensive.  If the Federal and State governments didn't pay for half the cost and force electric utilities to buy all the output at inflated costs, there wouldn't be a single one being built.  But ignoring the economic realities, what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?  Do we just close down all the factories and hospitals and shut off our air conditioners?

4)  Nuclear?  Horrendously expensive first cost.  The current estimate for STP is about $12 Billion for 2 units, but for the sake of argument, lets say $20 Billion, or $10 Billion each.  STP estimates that each unit will generate $2 Million per day in revenue.  Do the math, $2M/d X 365 d/yr X 13.7 years = $10 B.  The design life of the plant is 60 years.  that's one hell of a return on investment while providing the Houston area with lots of electricity to fuel growth and prosperity.

So, which do you chose?

December 31, 2009 10:26 PM
Share |

Leave a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Add

About steveheiser

Stephen graduated from Emerson College in January 1989 with a B.F.A. in Professional Writing. He started as an energy writer and editor shortly after. Since then he has been writing and editing energy news for a variety of publications including: Wilson's Business Abstracts, Individual Inc., Newspage, Newsedge, Andover News Network, VerticalNet, PowerOnline, ElectricNet, and Live Power News. In December of 2008, Stephen was hired by industry veteran and Nuclear Street Publisher Cam Abernethy to become Nuclear Street’s Managing Editor. Stephen is a member of AEE, ASME, and NEM.
Copyright (c) 2010 Nuclear Street
Advertise With Us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us