• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GE's Advanced ESBWR Nuclear Reactor Chosen for Two Proposed Projects

K1052

Elite Member
GE's Advanced ESBWR Nuclear Reactor Chosen for Two Proposed Projects; NuStart, Entergy License Applications Would Be Among the First In Three Decades

WILMINGTON, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 26, 2005--The U.S. utility industry has announced plans to prepare license applications to build a new generation of nuclear reactors at three sites in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, with two projects featuring GE Energy's advanced reactor design, the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR).


On September 22, U.S. utility consortium NuStart Energy Development, LLC announced it would develop a federal construction and operating license (COL) application at a site adjacent to member utility Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Miss. GE's ESBWR is NuStart's preferred reactor technology for this project.

Separate from its NuStart project, New Orleans, La.-based Entergy said it also will simultaneously develop a COL application to potentially build and operate a second ESBWR, this one adjacent to the utility's River Bend nuclear power plant near St. Francisville, La.

The COLs could be among the first such license requests in three decades. Utilities must obtain a COL from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to have the option of building a new reactor.

"We look forward to working closely with NuStart and Entergy to begin more detailed, site-specific engineering work required to complete the construction and operating license (COL) applications for the ESBWR projects," said Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business.

The ESBWR is a new reactor design of the "Generation III+" class, designed to be safer and more cost-effective to operate due to "passive" safety systems, simplified design and a smaller footprint -- thus reducing its construction schedule and costs.

NuStart's selection of Grand Gulf

Grand Gulf was a natural choice of NuStart for a 1,500-megawatt ESBWR. The plant's owner, Entergy, is the nation's second largest operator and a leader for the next generation of nuclear energy in the United States.

In addition, Grand Gulf has received strong state and local community support, and Entergy is on track to receive an early site permit from the NRC by early 2007, the first under the federal agency's new licensing process.

Grand Gulf is one of two sites that NuStart announced would potentially host new advanced reactors. NuStart has also selected the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) unfinished Bellefonte plant in Scottsboro, Ala. for a potential Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.

"With NuStart's announcement of the two sites, a U.S. nuclear renaissance is clearly within reach," noted GE's White.

"Today's announcement means we will be taking the necessary steps to have the option to build new nuclear capacity - especially if nuclear energy continues to be the lowest cost, best option for its power customers in the future," said Dan Keuter, Entergy's vice president of nuclear business development. "Our customers want a stable, low-cost electricity source that also does not contribute to climate change. Advanced reactors like the ESBWR can provide both."

NuStart will prepare separate COL applications on behalf of Entergy and the TVA. The industry group plans to submit the COLs to the NRC for review in late 2007 and early 2008. After a two-to-three year review process, the NRC could issue the two COLs in 2010. At that time, any NuStart member company, or alliance of companies, could take over one or both of NuStart's COLs and proceed with construction at the site identified in the given license.

If Entergy decides to proceed with building an ESBWR at Grand Gulf, construction is expected to take up to four years, with commercial operation beginning as soon as 2015.

Entergy's River Bend project

Entergy's River Bend site in Louisiana was on NuStart's list of six semifinalist sites. NuStart praised the strong showing of state and local community support for the River Bend proposal. In its September 22 announcement, NuStart stated River Bend and the other five sites are "excellent locations for an advanced nuclear unit from a financial and technical standpoint."

In late 2007 or early 2008, Entergy will decide whether to submit its COL applications for Grand Gulf and River Bend to the NRC.

About GE Energy

GE Energy is one of the world's leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technology, with 2004 revenues of $17.3 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy provides equipment, service and management solutions across the power generation, distributed power and energy rental industries.

GE Energy's nuclear business, headquartered in Wilmington, N.C., develops advanced light water reactors and provides a wide array of technology-based products and services to help owners of both boiling and pressurized water reactors safely operate their facilities with greater efficiency and output

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit...view&newsId=20050926005751&newsLang=en

It is about time the utilities got serious about building more generating capacity using nuclear power. GE and Westinghouse have also licensed their designs to Korea and Japan. Japan is aready operating several GE ABWR units (which the ESBR was derived from) for a decade.

Nuclear power is a safer alternative than ever.
 
WOOO hoo thats great news! This is an example how Bush's energy policy is doing some good. Evidently when I was criticizing it it was a little premature. The last week I've done more reading and there's a ton of incentive for moving away from oil based energy.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately this won't do much, if anything, to that end right now.

Once the utilities get back into the swing of building nuclear plants hopefully they will invest in the more advanced reactors that are in the development pipeline for hydrogen production.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
WOOO hoo thats great news! This is an example how Bush's energy policy is doing some good. Evidently when I was criticizing it it was a little premature. The last week I've done more reading and there's a ton of incentive for moving away from oil based energy.

Don't see any evidence that Bush's energy plan had anything to do with this. After all, his bill was focused primarily on increasing the profits of oil companies, not anything like this. This looks more like regular American business to me.
 
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.
 
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.

I'm a big fan of wind and solar power, but I'd take a nuclear reactor over a coal plant in my backyard.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
WOOO hoo thats great news! This is an example how Bush's energy policy is doing some good. Evidently when I was criticizing it it was a little premature. The last week I've done more reading and there's a ton of incentive for moving away from oil based energy.

Don't see any evidence that Bush's energy plan had anything to do with this. After all, his bill was focused primarily on increasing the profits of oil companies, not anything like this. This looks more like regular American business to me.

IIRC, the bill included loan guarantees, tax credits, and risk protection for the nuclear industry. Three billion is also slated for the DOE for nuclear research including a pilot hydrogen production reactor.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
WOOO hoo thats great news! This is an example how Bush's energy policy is doing some good. Evidently when I was criticizing it it was a little premature. The last week I've done more reading and there's a ton of incentive for moving away from oil based energy.

Don't see any evidence that Bush's energy plan had anything to do with this. After all, his bill was focused primarily on increasing the profits of oil companies, not anything like this. This looks more like regular American business to me.

Bush's energy bills the last 3 years have steadily offered more and more and more credits for alternative sources of energy. I blasted this years pretty hard (I work in the energy business) for not continuing to increase incentives. Well a friend of mine that runs as nuclear plant said I needed to read the full bill not just parts of the bill. Well I dont have time to read a billion pages but he basically sent me a summary of the nuclear energy portion and there's credits out the butt for nuclear power.

Coal isn't dirty like it used to be, thats a common myth there's a massive coal plant about 30 miles from here and its very clean. Nuclear is even cleaner, there is no pollution from modern nuclear plants. The nuclear waste is confined and then eventually burried.
 
I like Nuclear power and I work for GE, so good news. Too bad the energy bill essentially pays for a company to build a reactor, with no risk except for our tax money. If it's not a free market, why not just have the government build and run it? We are paying for the construction and insurance just so some private company with nothing to lose can profit?
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
I like Nuclear power and I work for GE, so good news. Too bad the energy bill essentially pays for a company to build a reactor, with no risk except for our tax money. If it's not a free market, why not just have the government build and run it? We are paying for the construction and insurance just so some private company with nothing to lose can profit?

The companies still have to pay, the economic package is an incentive that lessens the risk and I think it only covers a few specific projects. This will let the industry get used to these new reactors and what the buiding/operating costs will actually be.

A streamlined application process should also have been included but was not. All manner of things (usually local opposition these days) can cause very expensive delays. That is one of the reasons the utilities are picking sites on or near existing nuclear plants.
 
Could explain why GE's target stock price is for the low- to mid-40s by EOY.

Good to see nuclear energy expanding.
 
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.

I'm a big fan of wind and solar power, but I'd take a nuclear reactor over a coal plant in my backyard.

Putting more money into solar & wind power still won't make either technology efficient enough to pump out as much energy per sqft as a nucular reactor.
 
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.

I'm a big fan of wind and solar power, but I'd take a nuclear reactor over a coal plant in my backyard.

Putting more money into solar & wind power still won't make either technology efficient enough to pump out as much energy per sqft as a nucular reactor.

There have been great leaps in wind power effeciency the last decade. We'll continue to see a good increase in both, solar is also on the verge of some major breakthroughs by stringing nanotubes together in chains.

I agree the government is giving a lot of subsidies to these companies, but its the government that allowed all the mergers of the large oil compaines in the late 90s and early 2000s thats caused much of this oil fix we're currently in.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.

I'm a big fan of wind and solar power, but I'd take a nuclear reactor over a coal plant in my backyard.

Putting more money into solar & wind power still won't make either technology efficient enough to pump out as much energy per sqft as a nucular reactor.

There have been great leaps in wind power effeciency the last decade. We'll continue to see a good increase in both, solar is also on the verge of some major breakthroughs by stringing nanotubes together in chains.

I agree the government is giving a lot of subsidies to these companies, but its the government that allowed all the mergers of the large oil compaines in the late 90s and early 2000s thats caused much of this oil fix we're currently in.
Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

Good to see the US get back into nuclear power. Maybe the pain of relying on foreign oil will overpower the environmentalists and chicken littles that have thwarted nuclear power for so long?
 
Originally posted by: Crono
I hate nuclear reactors (live 8 miles from Entergy's Indian Point), but I'm glad that overall safety and efficiency is being improved. It would be nice if they shifted the billions of dolalrs it would cost to build these reactors to further developing solar and wind power.


Chrono: Wind and Solar power will never produce enough power needed in a modern society, they are just to ineffecient. Besides, the amount a surface area they would need on the earth, if they were the only source of power, would be so large it would drastically alter the planets climate and wind patterns for the worse.

Also, coal power plants release more radioactivity in the air, along with other dangerous chemicals, than nuclear power plants do.

Here is a link to a site that addresses most of the false arguments against nuclear power.
http://www.geocities.com/freedomforfission/

Most of the arguments against nuclear energy basically boil down to scaremongering from people who have a severe misunderstanding of the science.
 
Solar is great and all, but I just don't see it surpassing nuclear anytime soon. However, I'm all for putting solar panels on houses. I wouldn't be surprised if local energy companies don't give some kind of credit for them. I know ones around here essentially subsidize those low power consumption light bulbs.

The biggest leap is still a matter of getting hydrogen to become cost efficient. (Yeah, this is about cars, but still, it's a huge part of our dependence on foreign oil)
 
This is very important but I think we are way behind the curve. Eventually those old 40+ year old Nuke plants will need to be replaced. Waiting until the last second to do this is not a good option.

Nuclear energy right now is our most efficient and clean way to bring power to the masses. We need to expand and replace aging reactors.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately this won't do much, if anything, to that end right now.

Once the utilities get back into the swing of building nuclear plants hopefully they will invest in the more advanced reactors that are in the development pipeline for hydrogen production.

The few hydrogen discussions I have followed indicated scientists back in the 60s and 70s when discussin Hydrogen as the next fuel for our economy thought there would be an over supply of Nuclear energy to make the hydrogen fuel.
 
Solar power has a future. Wind power tends to suffer from NIMBY syndrome as many people don't want large wind farms in their backyard, not to mention that areas where wind power can function efficiently and cost efectively are limited.

I would think if they can pass legislation that will help companies develope cheaper and more efficient solar panels. That we could start putting these panels on the roofs of houses and reduce the load on the power plants which will allow them to shift their energy capabilities to producing hydrogen.

I think without the ability to create a Fusion reactor in the end solar may be our best bet. The Sun drops a lot of energy onto our surface. If we could somehow capture it then we are talking about a lot of relatively free energy.
 
Solar is great and all, but I just don't see it surpassing nuclear anytime soon. However, I'm all for putting solar panels on houses. I wouldn't be surprised if local energy companies don't give some kind of credit for them. I know ones around here essentially subsidize those low power consumption light bulbs.

One guy who lives around me has solar panels on his house and actually gets credits back from the power company. On Sunny days if every house has a solar panel you could maybe see a positive energy flow from each house?

No idea but I think we are kicking ourselves in the shins by not exploring the idea of putting panels on every new home built and maybe even retrofitting older ones when their roofs need to be replaced.

 
New reactors in the heart of the hurricane zone. Sounds like a brilliant idea to me.

When they invevitably get flooded, maybe we'll find 3 eyed fish in the waters.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately this won't do much, if anything, to that end right now.

Once the utilities get back into the swing of building nuclear plants hopefully they will invest in the more advanced reactors that are in the development pipeline for hydrogen production.

The few hydrogen discussions I have followed indicated scientists back in the 60s and 70s when discussin Hydrogen as the next fuel for our economy thought there would be an over supply of Nuclear energy to make the hydrogen fuel.

I am guessing that they were referring to use of surplus electrical capacity in electrolysis cells. This is a rather inefficient way to produce hydrogen since the energy has to traverse the steam cycle and electrolysis process where much is lost.

The current goal is to use nuclear heat directly to separate hydrogen in a thermochemical reaction. The temperatures required are substantially higher than our current reactors are able to provide so they are looking at alternative reactor designs. Some Gen IV reactors being designed with this purpose in mind, reactors like the pebble bed system are looking most promising.
 
Back
Top