More

New Nuclear Plant Set For Southern Ohio

TERRY KINNEY   06/17/09 06:50 PM ET   AP

Nuclear

CINCINNATI — The site of a former uranium enrichment plant tucked away in the hills of southern Ohio has the necessary infrastructure for a nuclear power plant _ abundant water, a power grid and bipartisan political backing.

It's where the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant enriched uranium during the Cold War. Cleanup of the site is still going on, along with construction of a new-technology centrifuge process to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants.

President Barack Obama expressed support for clean energy and for workers at the plant during last year's campaign.

The state's top elected Democrats and Republicans, many of them longtime backers of atomic energy, are expected at the Piketon site on Thursday for the formal announcement.

They include Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat who used to represent the area in Congress, and Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican who does now.

Barry Bennett, Schmidt's chief of staff, has called it "a major, major plant."

Officials declined to release details _ cost, capacity, time table _ on Wednesday. Sally Thelen, a Duke Energy spokeswoman in Cincinnati, said Duke will be a partner in the plant but declined to say how big a share of ownership Duke would have and who the partners will be.

"Right now we're just acknowledging the announcement, now that the cat is out of the bag," she said.

But she was willing to talk about Duke's experience with nuclear plants. The company has two nuclear plants in South Carolina and one in North Carolina.

"We've been in nuclear over 30 years _ safely, efficiently," Thelen said. "About 20 percent of our energy is nuclear. It would be new here, where our plants are coal-fired, but in terms of Duke, we've done it safely and reliably for over 30 years."

The president of the union whose workers are cleaning up the adjacent Piketon site of the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant said he learned several days ago the announcement would be made, and it was tough to try to keep it under wraps.

"It's going to be a big deal," said Bobby Graff, president of USW Local 5-589. He expects about 400 permanent jobs for his members, but that's at least a decade down the road.

Financing and licensing could take three to four years. But when it's begun, construction of the plant could create as many as 4,000 temporary jobs, according to some estimates.

USEC Inc., based in Bethesda, Md., is building the American Centrifuge Plant on a portion of the 3,700-acre Department of Energy site about 80 miles east of Cincinnati.

Spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said even when the centrifuge plant, which still is seeking financing and a $2 billion government loan guarantee, is on line, and when the generating plant is completed, enriched uranium would not pass directly from the centrifuge to the plant.

It has to go elsewhere to be packed into usable fuel pellets or fuel rods, she said.

Marilyn Wall, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club's Miami Group office in Cincinnati, said environmental organization remains opposed to construction of nuclear power plants because of several issues, including uranium mining practices and disposal of nuclear waste.

"We don't see it as a solution or a viable energy policy," Wall said. "And there are a lot of nuclear issues already in Piketon."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CINCINNATI — The site of a former uranium enrichment plant tucked away in the hills of southern Ohio has the necessary infrastructure for a nuclear power plant _ abundant water, a power grid and...
CINCINNATI — The site of a former uranium enrichment plant tucked away in the hills of southern Ohio has the necessary infrastructure for a nuclear power plant _ abundant water, a power grid and...
Filed by Dave Burdick  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:46 PM on 06/20/2009
Why hasten Global Nuclear War for energy we can get safely, cheaper, faster from rooftop solar and BioChar, forever. see my profile. The military industrial folks makes billions of nuke power, that's the only reason it's being pushed.
01:26 PM on 06/24/2009
I hate to break it to you but rooftop solar is nowhere close to being more cost-effective than nuclear power. Nuclear can generate 1 kilowatt-hour for about 10 cents whereas the industrial grade photovoltaic panels will cost over 20 cents per kilowatt hour.

Biochar is still a pipe dream as we lack the requisite means of distribution. As far as a fuel is concerned bio-diesel is a much more effective and proven technology. As a carbon capture method biochar will be unable to make a dent for decades. The offsets provided by a nuclear plant are far greater and far more practical as an immediate action.

Also the military doesn't make any money off of the power plants, they are privately operated. And the government sold the uranium enrichment processes off in 1998.
10:36 PM on 06/24/2009
I love to break it to you: rooftop solar is 3 cents per KWH.

Do the math. 2$ per peak watt installed over 30 years.

Tell me what nuclear costs when it leads to nuclear war, or when the taxpayers have pay insurance for a meltdown, or quadrillions of dollars worth of lands has to be used to store the waste for a million years.

The whole point of BioChar is local distributed use! Bio-Diesel only makes sense for waste oil, which is a limited resource. BioChar can use the entire organic output of the worlds land for food, clothing and wood, then instead of landfills, we get energy and fuel.

Nuclear power plants are built and run by large military conglomerates. GE for instance.

My profile proves everything I have stated
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
12:11 PM on 06/20/2009
This is typical AP crap that gets written without any regard to the facts or opposition to nuclear power. The entire article is devoted to the nuclear apologists with two small paragraphs at the end devoted to the anti nuke folks as a mere footnote. AP is a vile organization and Terry Kinney is a aprt of the sad bunch of journalists who work for AP.
10:00 PM on 06/19/2009
Conservation first....we all need to use less energy....this nuke plant will never be built....there is no money.....and soon we'll all be too busy growing our own food and mending our socks to the light of a candle to bother with trying to hitch a ride to work to build another folly......there has never been cheap energy...we are paying for oil and coal and nukes with the great grandkids lives.....get a horse, learn to do somehing truly useful and turn off your tv......
05:10 PM on 06/19/2009
Finally, but we need far more nuclear reactors online to begin effectively replacing coal. Hopefully the whole nation will follow suit so that we can actually effectively reduce our emissions and keep our baseload electricity level as it is.

To one of the comments bellow that claim nuclear and coal causes cancer: DO some research from reputable sources and you'll find there is no such correlation between nuclear and cancer. For instance a study by John Hopkins univerisity on over 30,000 nuclear workers:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-NSWS-shipyard.pdf
The french who get 80% of their power by nuclear have lowest cancer and infant mortality rates and the longest life expectancy in all of Europe. However, there is no denying that coal causes cancer not only it has high toxicity level but also spews high level of radiation in the atmosphere.
One final point, the waste is very small! and can and is being recycle by other countries.

Don't let the fear mongers, uneducated, anti-nuclear people that have an irrational fear of radiation to get the last word, get informed:
http://www.radiationanswers.org/index.html

Great links to get info on nuclear include:
http://pronucleardemocrats.blogspot.com/
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_08nuclear

How relying on renewable could be devastating for the environment:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070724_renewable_energy.html
10:07 PM on 06/19/2009
educated, pro-environment, pro-farm, pro-kid, permaculturist here...just read this article

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070724_renewable_energy.html

and it does nothing for your argument....might want to read your sources before you post them...

we all need to live radically differently....there is no cheap energy......solve it simple...
10:41 AM on 06/20/2009
I actually like the article because it has opposing views, to reduce our carbon footprint we need all kind of resources. I would add that is what is needed in huffpost since all nuclear related articles are very bias and more often than not well informed.
11:10 PM on 06/19/2009
Ah, the nuclear power industry representative repeats the same old discredited talking points.

Nuke power = nuke proliferation, India, Pakistan etc...

France dumps it's waste all over the world.

rooftop solar and biochar are cheaper, safe, faster to install, and will supply power FOREVER.

MIT "Insurmountable Risks":
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
10:41 AM on 06/20/2009
research I wish I was a "nuclear power industry representative" I'm a student and could use the money. Not everyone that disagree with you is working for the nuclear industry believe it or not. It always amazes the complete paranoia regarding nuclear in this country if you go to Sweden,France or Finland which by the way have much higher standards of living than US people do not have that same irrational fear. Whether is universal healthcare or nuclear power the opposing views always try to instill fear and paranoia to the public.
03:26 PM on 06/19/2009
The Rapture is coming soon anyway,

so it doesn't matter that more nuke power industry = Nuke proliferation = nuclear war.

It doesn't matter that the ponce through nuclear fuel will be gone in 13 years (85 at today's rate of use),

It doesn't matter that the waste will cost quadrillions of dollar in lost land use for store the waste for 1 million years.

No, What matters is the Military industrial complex make billions from nuclear tech, and they run the world.

Roof Solar and Waste BioChar, cheap, safe energy

Forever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
04:54 PM on 06/19/2009
"It doesn't matter that the ponce through nuclear fuel will be gone in 13 years (85 at today's rate of use),"

A pessimistic assessment:
Therefore, leaving aside the U in sea water, the total ESTIMATED + NON-CONVENTIONAL uranium reserves are enough for more than 600 years of use at current consumption rate using today's reactors and at a cost less than 80-130$/kg U (about twice today's spot price).
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/uranium_resources_BC-04.htm


600 years. Not 85 years. And that only assumes the priice per Kg doubles over the present.
11:06 PM on 06/19/2009
From your link:

"PROVEN Uranium reserves worldwide: about 4 million tons (current consumption rate of U worldwide is 60 000 tons per year => proven reserves at 80-130 $/kgU these proven reserves are enough for 65 years of use at the current consumption rate)"

Everything that is not proven, is a guess.

Why are we threatening to mine the grand canyon for uranium, if it isn't scare? Why has the price or uranium gone up 10 times in the last ten years?

You are talking science fiction about economical extracting uranium from sea water.
11:19 AM on 06/19/2009
Great news! Now we need another 1,000 similar announcements. Job creation anybody?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jetphixer
Bee Keeper & Retired
07:57 AM on 06/19/2009
I agree it is a very expensive way to boil water, is it better than coal?1 Both cause cancer ,2 both have a mess to clean up afterward. Why we cant use wind and solar is beyond me. We can just as effectively boil water with solar power than we can with Nuks And wen it comes down to it that is what one is doing. As we say in the Navy" making steam". Cause that is all we are doing with the stuff. This is an other example of kicking the can down the road Future gens. get to pay to put these to rest and clean up the mess we leave them.And what a mess it is! We surely have short term gratifications .an no thought for a ruture. Good Luck 2 us all At this point in time i am as glad to be as old as i am. Hopefully next life will be in some sane country .
11:22 AM on 06/19/2009
It's all about reliability. Nukes have it, renewables do not.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shockmagog
12:47 PM on 06/19/2009
We can do both. Renewables are MUCH cheaper and (duh!) cleaner. Anyway, this plant won't be completed for at least 10 years.

"Clean, plentiful and too cheap to meter" is a thing of the past.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
07:40 PM on 06/19/2009
If it were not for government dithering on nuclear waste reprocessing or disposal we would not have an environmental problem with nuclear waste. We do need to controland reduce CO2 emissions and the only way to do it in large enough quantities is with nuclear power.

Wind and solar are a good supplement but we cannot generate enough to take the place of coal in the near future.
01:04 AM on 06/19/2009
It's a stupid way to boil water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Organic-Guy
Organic Gardener, Carpenter, Philosopher, Agitator
11:32 PM on 06/18/2009
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and short sighted people are when it comes to nuclear energy. statements like, "we've been doing this for 30 years" are so asinine. When we get to the 10,000 year half life of the waste without an accident that will be saying something. Not only that the mining, enrichment and transportation of the fuel and waste has accidents every day. Nuclear is not safe and can't be made safe. People are too arrogant and short sighted and stupid to handle it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
07:41 PM on 06/19/2009
What accidents? Please provide facts or links-if you can.
10:10 PM on 06/18/2009
"Estimates for new reactor construction costs continue to sky-rocket - reaching at least $12 billion late in 2008. Meanwhile the economic crisis and credit crunch has begun to erode reactor decommissioning funds which were invested in the stock market. Some estimates now the entire life-cycle costs for a new reactor at between $19 billion and $41 billion. In order to cover these exorbitant costs, the nuclear power industry is lobbying for heavy federal subsidization including unlimited loan guarantees. Beyond Nuclear opposes taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for the 50-year old nuclear energy industry". --Beyond Nuclear
10:06 PM on 06/18/2009
Kevin Kamps, spokesman for Beyond Nuclear, a member organization of the alliance, which is a nationwide network of organizations opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The industry ‘‘has already taken $500 billion from taxpayers and ratepayers in subsidies,’’ he said.

The Congressional Budget Office has predicted defaults on over half the loans covered by $20.5 billion in federal loan guarantees made to the nuclear power industry in 2007, Kamps said. This makes taxpayers ‘‘cosigners
on new reactor and uranium enrichment projects’’ that are not good investments, he said.

Now the nuclear power industry is lobbying for another $100 billion for the same and similar projects, he said.
08:02 PM on 06/18/2009
What I'd like to see is every nuke plant that's built be mandated to have an on-site plasma incinerator to deal with the waste. Plasma incinerators supposedly can break down even radioactive waste safely into it's basic elements. When the incinerator is not busy processing nuke waste, you could have trash from the landfill delivered to be processed.
10:01 PM on 06/18/2009
What I would like to see is the power companies pay for the nuclear plant without taxpayer assistance.
12:53 PM on 06/19/2009
Ditto for solar and wind and bio and geothermal.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
07:43 PM on 06/19/2009
What power plant are being built without government subsidies?
07:54 PM on 06/18/2009
Say thank you to the American Taxpayer who paid for 97% of it's Trillion dollar price tag.
04:50 PM on 06/18/2009
This is a very Good Thing ! It Clean and Safe European Countries like France have 70% of their Energy from Nuclear Energy ! All that 60s Fear of Nukes was Politically Motivated because of the military Implication of the Atom.

Clean and Safe so save the Planet Earth and support Nuclear Power !

-Sarge
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
02:44 PM on 06/20/2009
Hey Sarge,

Great job with the research that got you to the clean and safe conclusion. I guess you missed the part where Areva built and owns two hospitals in Nigers for the sole purpose of treating uranium mine workers exposed to alpha emitting radon gas, uranium dust and arsenic. Only the workers and their families exposed to the radioactive poisons are permitted to use the hospitals. I guess you missed the article about the 210 uranium mines abandoned by Areva and the French Government where radioactive mine tailings have been used for school playgrounds and support for parking lots at ski resorts in the French Alps. Let's not forget the La Hague Reprocessing plant on the Normandy coast where over 110 million gallons of radioactive waste are dumped into the English Channel and unknown quantities of Krypton-85 are vented into the atmosphere. They have closed beachs to the public and fishing in the area. I guees you missed the news story abot the Tricastin Nuclear Plant releasing 30,000 litres of water contain12% eneriched uranium into two French rivers in July 2008. I can keep going, but you are getting the picture. The entire story is available on Alternet.com from March 23, 2009. Just keep believing that the French nuclear industry is clean and safe. It is an unmittigated disaster allowed to operate under the Official French State Secrets Act. The British operate under a similar act and their nuclear program isn't any better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
01:07 PM on 06/18/2009
When you see its just centralized energy with growing close down costs go solar with the pay you get working on the plant.