I'm a bit off topic here, but since FPL seems to think nuclear should be given the same due as solar in the RPS legislation, I figured I'd cover a bit of rather alarming news about the company slated to build the new Turkey Point nuclear units:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently rejected the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor design over flaws in the shield building design. The shield building is the outermost structure around the reactor.
It appears that the NRC deemed the building insufficiently tough enough to withstand natural disasters - a rather important performance measure in hurricane prone South Florida. The design flaw also seems to stem partially from the manufacturer's attempt to make the construction "modular" - making the structure in sections elsewhere and shipping them to the final destination to be connected together like Lego blocks. While that aspect of the design is probably overcome by slowing down construction and pouring concrete on site, a bigger issue might be the passive cooling design. The Westinghouse unit stores millions of gallons of water above the reactor so an emergency shut-down would not require energy to pump water into the containment area. Structural concerns there would be harder to work around.
Even though this will likely impact the construction timeline for FPL, the PSC just gave the go-ahead to pre-charge us for these new reactors just this past week. I wonder if the utility informed the PSC about the problems with the design when they were asking for early cost recovery.
The New York Times: Agency Rejects Westinghouse Plant Design
The Wall Street Journal: NRC Rejects Nuclear Plant Design
The Miami Herald: Nuclear Reactor Design Has Safety Flaw
The Charlotte Business Journal: NRC rejects Westinghouse Reactor's Shield Building Design
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Solar Energy Industry group calls for oil drilling!
FlaSEIA, whom I have referenced numerous times in this blog as the "go-to" group representing solar in Florida recently shocked pretty-much everyone by endorsing oil drilling in Florida. The supposition of their support resting on the notion that the new revenue from royalties and taxes on the found oil and gas could be used to subsidize solar and other alternative energy production.
Setting aside the revolting idea that an alternative energy organization would push for more of their dirty carbon competition, I have some serious concerns about the economic conclusions being reached by the solar group.
The Florida legislature has not adequately funded education, much less the State's solar rebate program. Without stimulus money from Washington this year, the school system state-wide would have been adding thousands of teachers to the ranks of the unemployed, but would have completely emptied the coffers for the rebate program and probably left thousands of solar installations in the lurch.
Even then, to "balance" the budget this year, the State swept hundreds of millions of dollars from "trust funds" into the general fund. The trust fund idea that FlaSEIA thinks will provide support for solar, didn't protect programs designed to clean up toxic sites or build affordable houses, so to assume that alternative energy funding is untouchable is absurd.
The group should return to advocating for solar by passing a renewable portfolio standard with a solar carve-out and pushing for their "permanent funding source" through a public benefit fund like every other state has been doing.
Just because Florida is one of the most backward places in the US when it comes to energy policy (amongst many), doesn't mean we should embrace stupid.
Here's a link to the FlaSEIA position paper, and a link to the story in the South Florida Business Journal
Setting aside the revolting idea that an alternative energy organization would push for more of their dirty carbon competition, I have some serious concerns about the economic conclusions being reached by the solar group.
The Florida legislature has not adequately funded education, much less the State's solar rebate program. Without stimulus money from Washington this year, the school system state-wide would have been adding thousands of teachers to the ranks of the unemployed, but would have completely emptied the coffers for the rebate program and probably left thousands of solar installations in the lurch.
Even then, to "balance" the budget this year, the State swept hundreds of millions of dollars from "trust funds" into the general fund. The trust fund idea that FlaSEIA thinks will provide support for solar, didn't protect programs designed to clean up toxic sites or build affordable houses, so to assume that alternative energy funding is untouchable is absurd.
The group should return to advocating for solar by passing a renewable portfolio standard with a solar carve-out and pushing for their "permanent funding source" through a public benefit fund like every other state has been doing.
Just because Florida is one of the most backward places in the US when it comes to energy policy (amongst many), doesn't mean we should embrace stupid.
Here's a link to the FlaSEIA position paper, and a link to the story in the South Florida Business Journal
Bacteria breakthrough: Team honored for turning dirt into a battery
Wicked-smart folks working with rudimentary materials to create "batteries" for the dirt-poor areas of Africa by harnessing the electrical discharges of bacteria in - ironically - dirt.
Cross post from The Fueling Station (alternative energy blog from the Tampa Tribune)
Cross post from The Fueling Station (alternative energy blog from the Tampa Tribune)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
