Proposed Nuclear Plant.... continued

Greatly underestimated and on purpose. Have a nice day Tim.

Hi Tim,

Both the costs and time are greatly underestimated, especially by AEHI...Peter

I would ask about another claim that this book makes. It is that the pipes and other apparatus needed for a nuke plant are inherently larger in size and mass than those for a coal plant. Do you feel that it is true? For two plants (One coal and one nuclear) of same output (1000 MW or so) that it takes more capital investment to produce that electricity at a nuke plant. I agree but I need more than a gut feeling to move on.

Hi Tim,

Here is a reference from the National Academy of Engineering on the use of steel and concrete per MW generating capacity FYPerusal...Peter

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument

Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository? (Print This)

Per F. Peterson

Volume 33, Number 3 - Fall 2003

Between 2007 and 2010, Congress must consider whether the United States needs a second repository for high-level radioactive waste.

Nuclear fission energy requires small inputs of natural resources compared to most other fossil and nonfossil energy technologies. When we consider net electricity generation (e.g., net electricity after subtracting consumption by internal plant loads and by uranium enrichment plants), the life-cycle resource inputs for nonfossil power sources are dominated by construction materials, most notably steel and concrete. The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity.1 For comparison, a typical wind-energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m3 of concrete per average MW(e) (Pacca and Horvath, 2002); and natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m3 concrete (Meier, 2002).

The time line that this developer described to me is that it will take 39 to 48 months to build the plant. The construction will be partly modular meaning that this will not be done strictly on site.

This brings me to one glaring point in this debate. If this plant is to create 3785 jobs (according to an Economic analysis performed by Johnson/Reed), there is going to have to be some mysterious elements to this labor puzzle. Typically, it takes 5 to 10 years to build one. Comparing those built in the past to today is a bit unrealistic. Different designs and better techniques have sped up the process. That being said, today's techniques require less labor and less materials. Palo Verde, the last plant successfully built in the US was largely built onsite. When I cross-referenced the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census, and the NEI data base, this plant only produced around 2300 jobs. This plant is larger in terms of square footage, amount of concrete, and amount of pipes and other apparatus. It would stand to reason that more material would take more labor to manipulate it and make it useful. AEHI proposes that 3785 jobs would be produced but this seems a bit like an advertisement.

Why does this matter? If the citizens think that jobs are plentiful, they will form expectations. They will possibly choose to quit their current jobs and seek employment for this company. One cant blame them, they are simply maximizing their well-being. If this information is incorrect, the area will see turmoil and likely wage deflation. If experienced, higher wage earners quit and find that these jobs have dried up they will likely be replaced by someone demanding a lower wage. There is always going to be some who do this regardless of the accuracy of that information. The difference being 100 or 800. Bad information will lead to voluntary quits and people moving to the area to find no jobs. This company surely will not reimburse the city for time and energy spent to accommodate these unlucky individuals.

Have a great weekend and remember June 8th is the day that the decision is handed down.

Commissioners will openly debate nuclear plant rezone request June 8

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Elmore County Commissioners will meet June 8, beginning at 9 a.m. to hold a formal deliberation on the AEHI request to rezone land near Hammett for a nuclear power plant.

They have not indicated if they will make a decision at that time. The primary purpose of the meeting is for the commissioners to openly discuss their thoughts on the matter.

No public testimony or comment will be accepted.

Again, as I have stated before and has been stated by others, a decision like this should not be placed on the shoulders of three people. Not with the far-reaching effect to the people of Elmore County and Hammett in particular! I wish that it would be a vote and therefore giving the burden of the decision to the people. If I were a commissioner, I would not want to make this important decision. My heart goes out to them and I hope that others will give them time in their prayers. For it or against it, these three have a tough job. The time is 7:07am.

It would be strange to not have a decision by that day but strange things happen. If one can strip the political element out and stick to facts, it becomes a bit less daunting. Pure logic and reasoning dont prevail in the political realm. This will probably come down to what they think will be gained by this.

It is strange that it has taken as long as it has since the rules are pretty clear. Now, will he ever pay his final bill to Elmore County? More bills than cash...not a very good sign.

there is another blog about this but I will continue on down this road.

Citizens feel that this will furnish jobs that are cushy, stable, and dependable. Cities and counties crave manufacturing plants and jobs. Manufacturing and its many parts are considered to be the most dependable and most likely to last the test of time. They are not prone to the ups and downs of sales. The product being made is one that humans will not get tired of, energy. Demand is always going to be there and normal people feel that this translates to high paying jobs that anyone can do.

If this operation was going to be high tech stuff like chip manufacturing it would not as well received. The myth that the community will send all its men to work at this plant and that this will be a pot of gold needs to be set straight. There will be benefits but not in the way that most think. I have detailed the concepts before. I have read many blogs, opinions, etc. that still pretend that everyone will gain. The cash windfall will only go to some not all. If the county knows this and can accept that not everyone will see a rise in standard of living then thats fine. Overall, the decision that is upcoming will not only affect the area now but will set precedent for the future.