Early Bid for a Reactor Site Draws Opposition in Texas

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Twenty years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rewrote its procedure for licensing reactors to cut the time it would take to build new ones. Now an important part of the system is getting its first test, as a Chicago-based nuclear utility clashes with a well-to-do group of Texas ranchers over preapproval of a site about 120 miles southwest of Houston.

The conflict involves the first application by a utility for approval of an entirely new site for a reactor without actually scheduling the construction of one.

In this case, Exelon, the utility that has filed the application, has stated that it will not build on the site unless business conditions change. Meanwhile, opponents of the project figure that if they do not object now, they will never have another opportunity, and they say they have found unique problems with the geology of the spot.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/business/energy-environment/25nuke.html

[Ilsa]

1. People in this area tend to vote very conservatively. But they don't

want nukuler power plants or uranium mined nearby. They are for job creation, but only low-skill, low-wage jobs.

[FreakinDJ]

2. NIMBYs - Not In My Back Yard

[southmost]

3. yeah the people around here tend to zombily vote for repukes

but aren't stupid enough , yet, to have another 'nuklear' plant around here

[McCamy Taylor]

4. People who live 120 miles southwest of Houston are likely

to have made big money off the environmental rape of the Texas Gulf Coast by the oil industry.

Pardon me while I tune the world's tiniest violin.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Isn't That "Ranch" That Cheney Shot Someone At Down There?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXAzAgb4pA

[TexasProgresive]

9. You need a geography lesson

The "ranch" is near Crawford close to Waco which is in the center of Texas. My guess is that the "Ranch" is 200 miles NNW of Houston.

[Paladin]

11. The Armstrong Ranch, Where The Cheney Shooting Happened, Is In S. Texas

Dubya's pig farm is the the one near Waco......

[Gman]

13. Armstrong is probably 150 - 180 miles away from there.

and getting into deep south Texas.

[webDude]

6. Don't mean to interfere with your prejudice and Texas bashing, but allow...

...me to point out that 120 miles sw of Houston is nothing but podunk small towns. I doubt that they cashed in. No, we do not all own oil wells, either. There are even a fair number of progressives in the state, we're not all republicans.

Come on, man.

[freshwest]

7. And there was substantial opposition to the first nukes there years ago.

[Hubert Flottz]

8. Right in the middle of the Bush Library for the dumb and greedy

would be a great spot.

[bananas]

10. I hope they stop it, there's no reason for new nuclear sites

Most of the existing reactors were built on sites that can accomodate a half-dozen or more reactors.
Back then, they thought nuclear energy would expand rapidly, so they picked sites where they could plunk down a bunch of reactors.
So the existing sites have been vetted for seismicity, cooling water, flooding/erosion, etc.
There is an existing infrastructure of power distribution, transmission lines and right-of-ways.
So building on existing sites will save construction time and money.
There is a highly-skilled experienced work force running the existing reactors, many of them will be retiring and can pass on their knowledge and experience to the next generation. This will also give them some job security, which is important because the existing plants will be reaching the end of their life-cycle over the next twenty years.
Waste storage will be on-site for the next 100 years or the life of the plant, by building new reactors on-site, they can keep the waste there for several hundred years. If the site is decommissioned, they will have to find someplace to store the waste for a million years (which is impossible).
If they really want to build new reactors, they should build them on existing nuclear plant sites.
Also, it's becoming more obvious that efficiency and renewables will be less expensive than new nuclear, so new sites are even more likely to turn into expensive boondoggles than new reactors at existing sites.
There just is no good reason for new nuclear sites.

[naaman fletcher]

14. good post.

They are probably looking for a new site so that they can get state handouts and such like when the car companies were building factories in alabama and tennessee.

[Gman]

12. I believe that's Ron Paul's district

Port Lavaca is which is about another 12-15 miles south. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts, if at all. His likely position would be the government doesn't have the right to tell someone what they can do with their property. There's also a lot of hubbub about Uranium mining about 40 miles west of Victoria, in Goliad county which is also Paul's district.

[jonthebru]

15. To close to where they live!

"they say they have found unique problems with the geology of the spot."
Geography probably, to close to home.

[hadrons]

16. They should place in INSIDE one of the gated communities ....

Remember the old "a conservative is a liberal who was mugged"?, this is "a liberal is a conservative who was told a nuclear power plant will be built in their neighborhood."

Although sadly MOST (not all) of the deep red GOP voters won't reflect deep on how the policies they support can bit them hard on the ass

[Zen Democrat]

17. I hate to break up the Texas bashing ... but this is around Victoria TX and about 45% Hispanic.

Stereotype Texas all you want -- unless truth and accuracy mean something to you. Texas is a BIG state. A state with a jury that found Hot-Tub Tommy DeLay GUILTY of fraud and conspiracy this year.