Electricity is the most utilitarian of energies and the master form of the master resource, as explained below by leading experts and even some critics of energy. Just ask residential users, commercial establishments, or the manufacturing facilities if they want to pay more or less for power.

And so it was distressing to hear Barack Obama in a moment of ‘green’ candor declare that electricity prices would “skyrocket” under a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  In his exact words and phrasing from November 2008:

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

The quotations follow.

Erich Zimmermann

“Next to the increasing importance of hydrocarbons as sources of energy, the rise of electricity is the most characteristic feature of the so-called second industrial revolution.”

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 568.

“The electrical industry represents one of the greatest achievements of applied science which man has yet attained. Only the chemical industry among basic industries can be placed on the same level.’’

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 597.

“New industries resting squarely on electricity come readily to mind: telephone, telegraph, cable, radio, radar, refrigeration, air-conditioning, electronics, television. There seems no end to the miracles which can be traced to this qualitative improvement of ancient energies and the refinement in their use.”

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

“Those who lived through the ‘brownouts’ and ‘blackouts’ of World War II have learned the blessings of electric light, or relearned them if they were taken for granted. Those who enjoy, as a matter of course, an average day of 16 or 18 light or lighted hours can hardly imagine the boredom and frustration of earlier times when sunset meant the end of general activity.”

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

“The increase in the hours spend usefully or pleasantly by millions wherever electricity sheds its light is one of the greatest blessings of mankind. If to this are added the endless hours of drudgery which electrically driven labor-saving devices spare housewives, farm families, and other workers, one gains some idea of the scope of this boon which has come to mankind from a force whose real nature remains a mystery.”

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

“Electricity resparked the Industrial Revolution, found new worlds to conquer, and accelerated the process of mechanization not only of manufacture and transport, but of agriculture as well. It set in motion a new wave of inventions which reduced and continues to reduce the cost of inanimate energy and thus encourages the further spread of its use.”

- Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

“Mineral energy provides a greater concentration of power than could the most ingenious and efficient use of untold human and animal labor. And mineral energy provides power in a more convenient, compact, mobile, and controllable form. . . . In a single day, the Consolidated Edison System in New York delivers enough electricity to do the work of three million draft horses or ten times as many hard-working men. Last year the Consolidated System turned out about as much energy as the total work output of the entire nation in 1850!”

- Gloria Waldron and J. Frederic Dewhurst, Power, Machines, and Plenty (New York: 1948), p. 11, quoted in Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 65.

Julian Simon

“Not much more than one century ago—after more than 50 centuries of recorded history and hundreds of centuries of unrecorded history—for the first time people had something better than a firelight or oil lamp to break the darkness after dusk. And the absence of electricity continued almost into the second half of the twentieth century for substantial portions of the population of the richest country in the world. Now all of us Americans take Edison’s gift for granted.”

- Julian Simon, “Introduction,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), p. 23.

“Boredom . . . is dispelled by electronic entertainment. This is an extraordinary gift to the old and shut-in.”

- Julian Simon, “Introduction,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), p. 21.

Vaclav Smil

“A reliable electricity supply has also created the first instantaneously interconnected global civilization.”

- Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,” Current History, December 2000, p. 408.

 “In addition to revolutionizing industrial production and services, electricity has helped industrial production and services, electricity has helped implement profound social changes by easing household chores through mass ownership of various appliances and by allowing instant global communication.”

- Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,” Current History, December 2000, p. 409.

“On the personal level, electricity has been essential in easing the lives of the traditionally disadvantaged half of the humanity as it did away with tiresome domestic labor and offered the possibility of female emancipation.”

- Vaclav Smil, Energies (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999), p. 134.

“The expanding use of electricity has been another key mark of twentieth-century progress. In 1900 less than 2 percent of the world’s fossil-fuel output was converted to electricity; in 2000 the share surpassed 30 percent. Electricity is the preferred form of energy because of its high efficiency, instant and effortless access, perfect and easily adjustable flow, cleanliness, and silence at the point of use.”

- Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,” Current History, December 2000, p. 409.

Worldwatch Institute (various authors)

“Businesses affected by extreme weather events commonly cite electricity as the most important ‘lifeline’ service—more crucial than telephones, natural gas, or water. Disrupted power can account for as much as 40 percent of the total insured losses claimed after a disaster.”

- Seth Dunn and Christopher Flavin, “Sizing Up Micropower,” in Lester Brown et al., State of the World 2000 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000), p. 150.

“As electricity became an even better bargain, its uses grew apace. Many factories were designed to take advantage of the unique properties of electricity, using it to manufacture chemicals, run motors, and perform dozens of other tasks.”

- Christopher Flavin, “Electricity’s Future: The Shift to Efficiency and Small-Scale Power,” Worldwatch Paper 61, Worldwatch Institute, November 1984, p. 14.

“Electricity can bring sweeping changes to the lives of rural people. It often opens villages to the outside world and gives people the idea that things can change. Surveys show that many people look back on the arrival of electricity as a turning point in their lives. Electric lights are usually the first appliance purchased, a big improvement over gas or kerosene lamps. Electric lighting allows school children to read in the evening and extends the work day into the evening hours. Electric irons are also popular in many communities, as are radios, television sets, and electric fans.”

- Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, p. 36.

“Studies show that in most villages people believe that electricity improves their standard of living more than any other change they have experienced. Women appear to appreciate the benefits of electricity more than men, since they generally spend more time around the home and electricity can help in household chores, while fans and radios make leisure time more pleasant. Many women report that they have more free time after getting electricity. Frequently, electric pumps are used to provide a reliable, clean supply of water from a village well for the first time, which makes life easier and improves health.”

- Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, pp. 36-37.

“Sometimes electricity provides unexpected benefits. In a remote village in China’s Fujian province in which young men have traditionally had a hard time finding wives, the arrival of electricity has attracted more brides.”

- Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, p. 38.

“The real potential of electricity lies not in providing social amenities but in stimulating long-term economic development.”

- Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, p. 41.

 Other

“Electric light, electric motors, electronics and other manifestations of electricity make modern industrial society possible. Electricity systems may be the most spectacularly successful technology of the 20th century. They work so well that those who most rely on them hardly notice them.”

- Walt Patterson, Transforming Electricity (London: Earthscan Publications, 1999), p. 1.

“Electricity, and energy more broadly, can be a driving force behind economic growth because of the role of electricity in almost every sector of the economy. Many of these benefits result from electricity’s convenience in use, ease of transport, safety, and cleanliness.

For example, industry uses electricity to drive motors for industrial processes, to run instruments that monitor, control, and inspect industrial operations, and to power new advanced automatic controls. This results in processes that are more efficient than labor alone while simultaneously increasing the productivity of labor. It is equally important that the commercial sector be provided with electricity, so that it can keep pace with changing computer processing and information technology requirements.

In particular, the financial sector relies heavily on information exchange and storage made possible only by high-quality, reliable electricity. Electricity can play a major role in the agricultural sector as well, through improved irrigation and harvesting practices.”

- Mark Bernstein et al., Developing Countries and Global Climate Change (Washington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 1999), p. 4.

“Bringing electricity to rural areas also creates opportunities for microenterprise. For example, improved lighting can allow for longer working hours or higher productivity in already established household industries, while new small industries requiring electricity, such as machine shops, can be established. . . . Electricity can also benefit households in numerous ways that boost quality of life and household productivity.”

- Mark Bernstein et al., Developing Countries and Global Climate Change (Washington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, June 1999), p. 4.

——————

(1) Buffalo Morning News, January 13, 1897, reprinted in Jill Jones, Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World (New York: Random House, 2003, front page.

On February 16, President Obama announced that the DOE has offered Plant Vogtle terms for a loan guarantee that could provide up to 80% of the project estimated cost of $14.5 billion with the Southern Nuclear only paying a credit subsidy fee.

That’s a lot of commitment from taxpayers–$11.6 billion worth. Perhaps rapidly rising construction costs of new nuclear plants is partly why the owners want such large protection up front. But there are problems with fundamental economics comparing nuclear to the best foregone opportunity.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations comparing a natural gas-fired combined cycle plant to a new nuclear plant raise more questions than answers.  For example, assume a utility has a baseload need of 2,400 MW in the future (like the new Vogtle units). Next, use the EIA future price projection of about 12 cents/kWh for nuclear and 8 cents/kWh for a gas-fired combined cycle produced electricity.

At today’s gas prices (yes, the prices have historically been extremely volatile), the combined cycle plant would use about $750 million a year of fuel. The 4 cents/kWh difference in busbar cost of generation is also equivalent to about $750 million per year in lower cost electricity generation. In essence, it’s an economic dead heat. However, the first cost of the no-risk gas combined-cycle plant is about a fifth of the nuclear plant, the latter which requires large government subsidies.

Simple math suggests that the gas-fired option should be back on the table. Moderate the fuel price risk with financial instruments with Grade A corporations. Obviously, there are major competitive problems with the nuclear plants to require such a large government subsidy–more explanation is invited in the comments by those in the know.

Background

The Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generation Plant (Plant Vogtle) is one of Georgia Power’s two nuclear facilities and one of three nuclear facilities in the Southern Company system (Figure 1). Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company since 1990, is the licensed operator of Plant Vogtle, which is located about 25 miles south of Augusta, Ga. The plant is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power Corp. (30%), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%), and the Dalton Utilities (1.6%).

Units 1 and 2 consist of Westinghouse four-loop pressurized water reactors (PWRs) rated at 1,109 and 1,127 MW respectively. Unit 1 began commercial operation in 1987; Unit 2 followed in 1989.

Figure 1. The Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generation Plant is located on a 3,100-acre site along the Savannah River, 25 miles south of Augusta. Its two units entered commercial service in the late 1980s and together produce over 2,200 MW. Courtesy: NRC

According to Southern Company, the demand for electricity on the Georgia Power system is projected to grow by 30% over the next 15 years. The construction of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle is one way Southern Company anticipates meeting the need for reliable baseload electricity in the future (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Southern Nuclear is moving forward with plans to build two new AP1000 Generation III+ nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. The two new plants are expected to enter commercial service in 2016 and 2017. This artist’s concept drawing illustrates the placement of the two new units in the foreground with the two existing units in the background. Courtesy: Southern Nuclear

Southern Nuclear has stated that each component of Southern Company’s energy portfolio—nuclear, fossil, and renewables—is equally important. However, the long-range generation planning process identified nuclear power as the most cost-effective, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy source to meet growing electricity demands in its service territory. This requirement, plus the continued successful operation of Vogtle Units 1 and 2, were the primary reasons why nuclear power was chosen for the Vogtle expansion project.

The NuStart Energy consortium was originally envisioned to demonstrate the licensing process for obtaining a combined Construction and Operating License (COL), but it has evolved into one of the critical success factors necessary to support the actual deployment of a new nuclear plant in the U.S. The value of NuStart was standardization. Further, the follow-on projects can in the future just reference those portions of the Plant Vogtle project COL application that contain standard licensing, engineering, technical, quality, and safety information, and develop their own applications much more efficiently. This alignment of resources creates a valuable experience base that can be used in the standardization of new plant construction and bring new technologies to market in a timely manner. This process allows the NRC to focus their resources on the differences rather than go over documentation they have already approved. (An Addendum has been included at the close of the article describing the NRC licensing processes in more detail.)

NuStart is participating in a cost-sharing program that is part of the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 initiative. The permit time-savings for future projects could be enormous for adopters of the AP1000 PWR design in the future.

Southern Company’s schedule for the two new units at Plant Vogtle appears to be reasonable and achievable assuming the cash flow is available (Table 1).

Table 1. Timeline for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Source: Southern Nuclear

The plan to proceed with building two new units at the Vogtle site was confirmed after achieving the following major milestones:

1. The NRC’s renewal of the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years (completed June 2009). The renewal application was submitted on June 27, 2007. In June 2009, the NRC renewed the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. The new licenses for Units 1 and 2 will expire on Jan. 16, 2047, and Feb. 9, 2049, respectively.

2. The Georgia Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) certification, required under Georgia law, that approved building two new reactors at the Vogtle site (completed March 2009). The PSC adopted a motion on March 17, 2009, allowing Georgia Power to recover the cost of financing the plant during construction. Both entities will jointly develop mechanisms to provide shared risk protection to taxpayers from significant cost overruns. In addition, the Georgia Senate voted to allow the company to recover its financing costs during construction of the reactors, thereby saving customers about $300 million over time. The PSC agreement set Georgia Power’s portion of the certified cost of each of the new units at nearly $6.5 billion.

3. The NRC’s issuance of an ESP and LWA (completed August 2009). Southern Nuclear had submitted an Early Site Permit (ESP) application for the Vogtle site to the NRC on August 15, 2006 and an application for a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) on August 16, 2007. (An explanation of the NRC licensing process is included at the end of the article.) The ESP application requested the NRC to approve a project site adjacent to the existing Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2. The ESP and LWA were approved by the NRC on August 26, 2009. The ESP is valid for 20 years. The LWA allows a “narrow set of construction activities at the site,” according to the NRC. In Southern Nuclear’s LWA application, the company can start construction activities limited to the placement of engineered backfill, retaining walls, lean concrete, mudmats, and a waterproof membrane (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Displacement in below-grade soil and rock is being monitored using an integrated system of highly accurate Geokon extensometers, displacement transducers, and pore pressure transducers. Other applications of this instrumentation include the measurement of ground movements around tunnels and behind retaining walls. Data obtained from the instrumentation at each monitoring location are collected several times each day and transmitted on-site by wireless radio from data loggers at each monitoring point, and then transmitted off-site via an IP phone to a central bank of data servers. Source: POWER

On August 26, 2009, the NRC issued an ESP for the two new units at the Vogtle site. Southern Nuclear’s ESP is the fourth such permit approved by the NRC but the first based on a specific technology: the Westinghouse AP1000 PWR (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The AP1000, based on the proven performance of Westinghouse-designed PWRs, is an advanced 1,154-MWe nuclear power plant that uses the forces of nature and simplicity of design to enhance plant safety and operations and reduce construction costs. Source: Westinghouse

Although the ESP, LWA, and COL processes can be combined, Southern Nuclear decided to treat each process separately. Southern Nuclear chose to manage their construction and licensing schedules concurrently. Also, there are certain types of construction activities that can be performed prior to receiving NRC approval. For example, workers have been proceeding with excavation activities for Unit 3, which are expected to continue through February 2010. The excavation will consist of a hole about 90 feet deep, several hundred feet wide, covering about 42 total acres. More than four million cubic yards of soil will be removed from the excavation. Once the existing soil is removed, backfill and compaction activities must be approved and monitored by the NRC.

The NRC Issues a COL (pending—scheduled for mid-2011). On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear filed an application with the NRC for a COL. The NRC has scheduled completion of the Vogtle final safety evaluation report in April 2011. Southern Nuclear expects to receive its COL later in 2011 and then immediately begin safety-related construction.

NuStart is working with Southern Company toward demonstrating the nation’s new process for licensing a nuclear power plant. For instance, Vogtle recently became the reference plant for the AP1000 under NuStart in June 2009. What this means is that Vogtle Units 3 and 4 will be the first to implement the NRC-approved AP1000 technology, and the Vogtle license application will serve as the reference COL.

The ability to have the two new units operating by 2016 and 2017 were key reasons for Southern Nuclear selecting the AP1000. Southern Nuclear believes this timeline is reasonable because the NRC staff has provided them with schedules or milestone dates as to when it expects to complete its reviews of a particular licensing submittal.

Southern Nuclear has signed an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract with the consortium of Shaw and Westinghouse for Units 3 and 4.

It’s worth noting that ESP, LWA, and COL processes are not unique to Vogtle Units 3 and 4; the NRC reports that 18 companies (or groups of companies) have submitted COL applications for up to 28 new nuclear reactors as of February 2010. Some of the earlier applicants in this process are also signing EPC contracts. As at the Vogtle site, other companies looking at new nuclear construction are conducting site preparation work such as land clearing, soil testing, and access road construction in anticipation of constructing new nuclear power plants.

The AP1000 Is NRC-Certified

Although no new nuclear plants have been ordered in the U.S. in 30 years, the major designers and manufacturers of these plants have continued to improve and refine designs, building several evolutions of successful designs in foreign countries. Westinghouse submitted the Standard Design Certification Application for its AP1000 reactor design on March 28, 2002. The NRC issued a final rule in the Federal Register certifying the Generation III+ design on January 27, 2006, and it remains the only Generation III+ reactor certified to date. Additionally, the European Utility Requirements organization certified that the AP1000 can be deployed in Europe. China is currently building multiple AP1000 reactors; its first unit is scheduled to be online by 2013, three years before the new Vogtle units.

The AP1000 has been designed to make use of modern, modular construction techniques (Figure 5). The design incorporates vendor-designed skids, equipment packages, and large multi-ton structural modules, as shown in Table 2. Welding and fabrication activities are performed in a factory environment, which improves working conditions, scheduling flexibility, and reduces the special tools and equipment needed on-site. Furthermore, modularization allows construction tasks that were traditionally performed in sequence to be completed in parallel, thus reducing capital costs and shortening construction schedules to approximately 36 months from the pouring of first concrete to the loading of fuel.

Figure 5. The inherent passive safety of the AP1000 derives from its modular construction design, which has fewer pumps and valves than the typical plant operating in the U.S. today. This increases reliability and reduces maintenance and operating costs. Source: Westinghouse

Table 2. Typical breakdown of AP1000 modules. Source: Westinghouse

Principal Building Structures

The AP1000 plant is arranged with five principal structures—nuclear island, turbine building, annex building, diesel generator building, and radwaste building—each on its own base mat (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The AP1000 plant arrangement consists of five principal building structures: the nuclear island, the turbine building, the annex building, the diesel generator building, and the radwaste building. Source: Westinghouse

The nuclear island consists of a free-standing steel containment building, a concrete shield building, and an auxiliary building. These are the only Seismic Category I structures required with the AP1000 design. The foundation for the nuclear island is an integral base mat that supports these buildings.

The safety-related equipment designed to perform accident mitigation functions is located on the nuclear island. Therefore, the nuclear island structures are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as hurricanes, floods, tornados, tsunamis, and earthquakes, as well as the effects of postulated internal events such as fires and flooding, without loss of capability to perform safety functions.

To preclude adverse interactions, the plant arrangement provides for separation between safety-related and non-safety-related systems and equipment. This separation is provided by partitioning an area with concrete walls and provides confidence that the safety design functions can be performed. The remaining nonseismic structures do not contain any safety-related equipment.

Passive Safety-Related Systems

The AP1000’s passive safety systems include the passive core cooling system, containment isolation, passive containment cooling system, and the main control room emergency habitability system.

A major safety advantage of passive plants is that long-term accident mitigation is maintained without operator action or reliance on off-site or on-site AC power. Instead of relying on active components, the AP1000 relies on natural circulation to keep the core and containment from overheating. For example, in the event of a design-basis accident, such as a coolant pipe break, the plant is designed to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. To provide high reliability, these systems are designed to move to their safeguard positions upon loss of power or upon receipt of a safeguards actuation signal.

The passive safety system design does not require the large network of active safety-grade support systems (such as AC power, diesel generators, and HVAC) that are needed in a typical nuclear plant. Therefore, less Seismic Category I building volume is required to house the safety equipment, resulting in an approximately 45% smaller footprint compared to an existing nuclear power plant with the same generating capability. This provides a large capital cost savings, as seismic structures cost roughly three times as much as nonseismic structures.

The AP1000 uses extensively analyzed and tested passive systems to improve the defense-in-depth safety of the plant. The ACRS and the NRC have scrutinized these systems and ruled that they meet all the required criteria.

These defense-in-depth capabilities for accident mitigation result in extremely low core-damage probabilities while minimizing occurrences of containment flooding, pressurization, and heat-up. For example, the AP1000’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) core damage frequency (CDF) is 1/100 of the CDF of currently operating plants and 1/20 of the maximum CDF deemed acceptable for new, advanced reactor designs.

The AP1000 is designed to mitigate a postulated severe accident such as core melt. Additional features and improvements include the absence of bottom-mounted in-core instrumentation and a lack of vessel penetrations below the top of the core. Having the core lower in the reactor vessel minimizes core temperature excursions during loss-of-coolant accidents. The AP1000 operator can flood the reactor cavity space immediately, thereby surrounding the reactor vessel with water. The cooling is sufficient to prevent molten core debris in the lower head from melting the steel vessel wall and spilling into the containment.

Improved Operations and Maintenance Efficiencies

Operating U.S. nuclear plants are already competitive producers of electricity compared with coal-fired plants. They also have the advantage that fuel accounts for about 25% of production costs for nuclear power, while the remaining 75% is for fixed costs of operation and maintenance. Therefore, nuclear power production is much less sensitive to changes in fuel costs than fossil-fueled plants, where fuel can account for 75% or more of the production costs.

As an added benefit, the AP1000 reactor has several design features that improve plant production, enhance worker safety, and reduce costs:

· The modular plant design and component standardization ensures a high degree of reliability, requiring significantly reduced maintenance, staging, and testing and inspection requirements.

· An 18-month fuel cycle results in improved availability and reduced overall fuel costs.

· Radiation exposure and the volume of generated plant radwaste are reduced.

· A 60-year design life.

Competitors in the race to build the next generation of U.S. nuclear plants may be slow out of the blocks, but expect the level of activity will accelerate in 2010 as companies that are serious about constructing Generation III+ reactors ramp up staff and on-site construction presence in preparation for a full construction release in 2011–2013 (Figure 7).

Expect Plant Vogtle to be the first of the next generation of nuclear plants to enter commercial service during 2016.

Figure 7. Workers are preparing for new construction by removing concrete foundations from old buildings to clear the area for Units 3 and 4. Work is also under way to support the electrical power and water supplies needed for construction. Courtesy: Southern Nuclear

Addendum: Improving the Nuclear Plant Licensing Process

The NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating commercial nuclear plants in the U.S. The current fleet of nuclear plants was licensed under a two-step process requiring both a construction permit and an operating license.

Beginning in 1989, the NRC promulgated a complementary licensing process that incorporates three fundamental elements: Early Site Permits (ESP), Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses (that is, a combined construction permit and operating license, or COL) to improve regulatory efficiency and add greater predictability to the licensing process.

Early Site Permits. The applicant can evaluate future nuclear plant site-related issues (such as safety, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness) for NRC approval that is independent of a construction permit, COL, or specific nuclear plant design. Because the NRC considers public involvement to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry, it issues a Federal Register notice for a mandatory public hearing after the NRC staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) complete their safety reviews. Once approved, the ESP is initially valid for no less than 10 and no more than 20 years, and can be renewed for 10 to 20 years. In addition to the ESP, the applicant may seek approval for a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) to perform site preparation activities in advance of issuance of a COL.

Standard Design Certifications. The NRC may approve and certify a standard nuclear plant design through a rulemaking, independent of a specific site. The level of detail in the application, equivalent to a Final Safety Analysis Report for an operating nuclear plant, must be sufficient to enable the NRC to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design, with the exception of site-specific design features such as intake structures and the ultimate heat sink. The ACRS reviews each application for certification, together with the NRC staff’s safety evaluation report, in a public meeting. Upon determining that the application meets the relevant standards and requirements, the commission drafts a rule to issue the standard design certification that is valid for 15 years. The NRC can grant a renewal for another 10 to 15 years.

Combined Licenses. The COL is a one-step licensing process designed to reduce regulatory uncertainty through which the NRC approves and issues a license to construct and operate a new nuclear power plant. The COL must contain the same information as was required for a construction permit under the old two-step process. Then, not less than 180 days before the date scheduled for initial fuel loading, the NRC will publish a notice of intended operation of the facility in the Federal Register. There is an opportunity for a hearing at this time. However, the NRC will consider petitions for a hearing only if the petitioner demonstrates that the licensee has not completed required inspections, tests, and analyses, or will not meet the acceptance criteria that are necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the plant has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license and applicable regulations. The NRC then authorizes operation of the plant after verifying that the licensee has met the required acceptance criteria. A combined license is issued for a specified period not to exceed 40 years.

The COL application may incorporate by reference a standard design certification, an ESP, both, or neither. The advantage of this approach is that the issues resolved during the design certification rulemaking and the ESP hearing processes are excluded from reconsideration later, at the COL stage. However, if an ESP and design certification are not referenced, then the NRC reviews the technical and environmental information as described for the two-step licensing process.

— Also contributing was James M. Hylko, a POWER contributing editor. Portions of this article were previously published in POWER magazine.

[Editor note: This excerpt from Bradley's next book, Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies, is part of a five-chapter history of Samuel Insull, the father of the modern power industry.]

President Obama just returned from Copenhagen empty handed. His hometown will not get the 2016 Olympics, or as a representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Chicago operation advertised it, the “Blue Green Olympics.”

Given the science, economics, and politics of the global warming, aka climate change, it can be hoped that Obama–and the heads of all governments around the world–come away ‘empty handed’ in Copenhagen in December. No town, city, province, or country should be burdened with energy rationing when consumer-driven, conventional energy has become more sustainable, not less.

The real global issue is economic recovery and growth, which means expanded private property and enhanced market institutions to promote sustainable growth in place of abject poverty and economic underperformance.

Flash back to the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. It introduced the world to the newest energy, electricity, soon to become the energy of energies. A new era of hope and progress was on display. Twenty million visitors had their lives changed by witnessing the results of the transformation of coal inputs into electric outputs.

“Electricity resparked the Industrial Revolution, found new worlds to conquer, and accelerated the process of mechanization not only of manufacture and transport, but of agriculture as well,” noted Erich Zimmermann. “It set in motion a new wave of inventions which reduced and continues to reduce the cost of inanimate energy and thus encourages the further spread of its use.” (1)

Added Vaclav Smil: “In addition to revolutionizing industrial production and services, electricity has helped industrial production and services, electricity has helped implement profound social changes by easing household chores through mass ownership of various appliances and by allowing instant global communication.” (2)

So here’s to the power behind the second Industrial Revolution and how it was displayed at the event also known as the World’s Columbian Exposition.

And may the electricity-for-all message of Chicago’s finest hour be remembered when citizens of the United States journey back to Copenhagen later this year.

———————–

Chicago had a gift in waiting for the new head of Chicago Edison Company, Samuel Insull: the World’s Columbian Exposition, better known as Chicago’s World’s Fair of 1893, commemorating the 400^th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of the New World. Chicago bested New York City, Washington, D.C. and nearby St. Louis for the honor.

 The 600-acre fairground at Jackson Park on Lake Michigan was beyond Chicago Edison’s modest DC reach, but self-generating exhibitors General Electric and Westinghouse brought the latest and future of electricity to twenty-two million visitors for whom technology provided hope amid economic uncertainty and social change. “Sell the cook stove if necessary … and come,” one enthralled visitor wrote to a relative.

At least in this time and space, Chicago became the White City, Dream City, and City of Light—“the city of the future as a technological utopia.” One of the Fair’s goals of turning night into day represented, in Insull’s estimation, “the first really successful effort in electric lighting of very large spaces.” The Fair successfully demonstrated elevated electric transportation (urban streetcars). And scalable power production was inaugurated with “marine type economical steam engines directly connected to large electric generators.”

From the Electricity Building to the Machine Hall to the applications themselves, electricity overshadowed just about everything else at the Fair, which also exhibited architecture, art, and industry. Searchlights illuminated water fountains, motorized sidewalks moved thousands at a time, and electric gondolas traversed the waterways. There was the all-electric “servantless” kitchen, complete with such novelties as a thermostatically controlled oven, water heater, chafing dish, and coffee maker.

Such marked “the birth of home economics,” which early feminists associated with “liberation” and “modernity.” “Monumental, orderly, beautiful, and clean”—those words had never described Chicago until the Exposition. Katharine Bates, a visiting English teacher from Wellesley College, was so moved by the Fair as to write the words for what became the song “America the Beautiful” (“Thine alabaster cities gleam”). The Emerald City of the Wizard of Oz was similarly inspired. Chicago’s showcase for America was what the Great Exhibition had been for Victorian England some decades before.

The six-month extravaganza propelled Samuel Insull and the nascent Chicago Edison. It introduced Insull to the important people he had not yet met in the industry. It whetted the public appetite for electrification—lighting now and appliances later. And the World’s Fair would put GE’s resident 1,200 horsepower engine and two 800-kilowatt generators—the juice behind their 70-foot Tower of Light showcasing 2,500 different types of Edison incandescents—in Insull’s reach. (Not to be outdone, Westinghouse exhibited 250,000 bulbs lit by a 15,000 horsepower engine.)

GE’s generator needed a home after the Exposition ended in October 1893, and with a financial downturn, as well as a lull in the central station business from GE’s own policies favoring isolated plants, Insull bought the equipment for a fraction of its production cost. Such would be housed at Chicago Edison’s new Harrison Street station, the largest power plant in the world.For industry executives, the “cultural significance of the World’s Fair [was] a starting point in plotting new directions for their business enterprises.”

Indeed, the National Electric Light Association (NELA), founded in 1885 in Chicago, had meticulously planned the event. And the Fair exceeded their high expectations.

——————————

(1) Erich Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), p. 596.

(2) Vaclav Smil, “The Energy Question, Again,” Current History, December 2000, p. 409.