Latest Blog Post (Apr 01, 2014): "Media Statement to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Denial" Read More

In the News


Column: Safety of St. Lucie plant is assured

by Nils Diaz — Mar. 3, 2014 — Herald-Tribune — As a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a Tampa Bay area resident, I have serious concerns about the article recently appearing in the Tampa Bay Times titled “Cooling tubes at FPL St. Lucie nuke plant show significant wear.”

I will focus on the issues relating to safety, specifically, mechanical wear in the tubes of a steam generator (boiler) at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant.

First and foremost, the article uses a baseless hypothetical that it frames as a “worst-case” scenario where a “tube bursts and spews radioactive fluid.” This alarmist phraseology conjures a false image and an inaccurate characterization of the St. Lucie plant’s safety.

A fact: On the rare occasion that one of the roughly 18,000 tubes in these heat exchangers leaks, it does not spew radioactive fluid into the environment. Instead, that water discharges into a well-isolated thick tank. Although this water can have slight levels of radioactivity, it is contained in a closed loop. Moreover, the steam generators and safety valves are inside sealed, reinforced-concrete containments. “Leak before break” is a major 20th century technical fact that strongly supports the safety framework used by nuclear power plants.

Nonetheless, this “tube-side” of the steam generators is treated as a safety issue because of the need to maintain the reactor cooling function, done primarily by water flowing through the generator tubes. Accordingly, the cooling water function of this system is complemented with redundant systems engineered into the design of these plants. Although some tubes do experience leaks in steam boilers (at both nuclear and nonnuclear power plants), it has not resulted in a public hazard.

This issue is not novel to the nuclear industry and not to the NRC. Over several decades of operating, fixing and replacing steam generators, the industry and the NRC have established detailed, technically sound protocols for analyzing and assessing tube wear in the context of safe operating margins. The protocols have been used at St. Lucie for the past seven years of the new steam generator’s operation.

I am especially surprised at the ease with which the Timesarticle dismisses a clear-cut, factual statement by a qualified NRC spokesman. Scott Burnell states: “The St. Lucie steam generator wear comes from existing, well-understood causes,” and “There is no steam generator safety issue, nor tube integrity safety concern, at St. Lucie.”

As the former chairman of the NRC, I can assure the people of Florida that when the NRC states that the issue is well-understood and that there is no safety issue nor tube integrity concern at St. Lucie, it is because there is none. It means that there is a sustained and substantiated consensus among the independent U.S. nuclear safety agency’s technical experts and the plant operator’s experts. In more than 40 years of dealing with safety-related matters inside and out of the NRC, I know this to be the truth.

The public health and safety of people who live within 50 miles of St. Lucie and beyond are protected by the demanding safety framework established by the nuclear power industry and confirmed by its regulators. No member of the public in the United States has ever been exposed to a radioactive hazard detrimental to their health from an operating nuclear power plant.

I am convinced that the NRC and the plant operator have rigorously reviewed the safety of the St. Lucie Plant prior to and after the power upgrade and concluded that the public health and safety is protected.

Nils Diaz, a resident of Pinellas County, served as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1996 to 2006 and was its chairman from 2003-06. Before then, he was professor and director of nuclear engineering sciences at the University of Florida. Diaz holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in nuclear engineering sciences from the University of Florida. He wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Column: Safety of St. Lucie plant is assured 03/03/14 [Last modified: Monday, March 3, 2014 5:15pm]
© Herald Tribune 

 

 

David Rossin: Florida’s Vital Nuclear Plants

Feb. 25, 2013 — Herald-Tribune — The Feb. 8 Herald-Tribune editorial headlined “Closed reactor reaction” suggested the “Crystal River nuclear plant shutdown “offers lessons on energy.” There are lessons here, but they are not the lessons offered in that editorial.

Certainly there are cost vulnerabilities with all major infrastructure projects. The Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR3) provided 29 years of clean, emission-free electricity to Floridians. During a maintenance and upgrade procedure, mistakes were made that damaged the external containment structure; that damage proved too costly to repair.

But this is not a lesson about energy. It’s a lesson about the cost of poor engineering decisions affecting any large piece of infrastructure.

It takes a bit of editorial spin to overlay this situation to conclusions about the entire fleet of 104 nuclear reactors that have reliably operated in America for five decades.

CR3’s reinforced concrete design is based on experience with countless bridges and skyscrapers. Lessons already being learned from it are indeed relevant to other plants and buildings. But the mistakes leading to the accidental damage of this facility do not translate into conclusions about the merits of one of nature’s basic forms of energy — nuclear fission.

For three decades, CR3 generated electricity as one of five reactors in Florida that have avoided the emission of over a trillion tons of carbon dioxide that would have been pumped into our air by the alternative — fossil fuel plants. Those nuclear plants also saved ratepayers billions of dollars from fossil fuel that did not have to be purchased.

Although the Herald-Tribune editorial suggests solar panels and conservation as the alternative, that is a comparison of apples to oranges. Although solar energy is also emission-free and has some legitimate applications, it cannot relieve the need for large quantities of continuous base-load electricity that is continuously produced by Florida’s fleet of nuclear plants.

We should strive for energy conservation but it cannot account for the nearly 5 gigawatts of electricity produced continuously by Florida’s nuclear plants.

Also, the editorial linked the issue of “nuclear waste” to the need for new nuclear plants. With enough space, I could explain the logical path for storing and recycling America’s relatively small volume of spent nuclear fuel and harvesting the enormous quantities of energy remaining in it. For now, just remember that this fuel is better recognized as a source of additional energy, not “waste.”

Despite the editorial’s claim, there is no logical connection between the owner’s decision to retire this 30-year-old plant and “weaknesses in consumer protection” or “rate-setting aspects of statewide regulation.” During the last five decades, Florida consumers have benefited from nuclear energy, which has provided one of the lowest cost components of the statewide energy portfolio.

The late Sir Walter Marshall, who headed the British energy programs, warned that “the greatest risk would be a society without sufficient energy to meet the legitimate needs of its people.” Here in Florida and across America, nuclear energy will continue to be an important component of our energy supply.

David Rossin of Sarasota is a retired engineer and expert in nuclear energy. He holds a doctorate degree in metallurgy from Case Institute of Technology/Case Western and formerly served as president of the American Nuclear Society. Email: ADRossin@msn.com

 

Nuclear Plants Benefit Floridians

Feb. 22, 2013 — Miami Herald — Susan Clary’s Feb. 11 Other Views column, Stuck with the bill for Florida’s unused nuclear facilities, has it all backwards. It’s the benefits of nuclear power that have stuck firmly for Florida.

Clary claimed that costs for nuclear plants have been approved “with no guarantee that they would ever be built.” Actually, 90 percent of all costs authorized for new nuclear plants in the past four years have been for Extended Power Uprates (EPUs) that have already been constructed thus increasing the output of existing nuclear power plants by about 500 megawatts. This is equivalent to a medium-size power plant without having to build one. Those uprate projects saved ratepayers the cost of fossil fuel that otherwise would have cost about $3.8 billion.

Florida’s law allows the Public Service Commission to hold cost recovery hearings as the costs are incurred rather than forcing ratepayers to absorb unnecessary interest charges if cost recovery hearings were delayed until the end of construction. This saves ratepayers about $2 billion for a two-unit nuclear plant. Repealing this law would be the real tax that we would be stuck with.

Finally, each of the recent EPU projects produced almost 4,000 temporary skilled jobs and many new full-time jobs for Floridians after completion. There’s another benefit that Florida’s economy was stuck with.

If Florida moves forward with the proposed new nuclear plants at Turkey Point, we will get thousands of additional jobs for each project. Each of Florida’s existing nuclear plants generate $70 to $90 million in annual salaries and $15 to $20 million in annual tax revenue. We can multiply those benefits by the number of new nuclear plants our state builds over the next couple decades. We’ll also get cost savings of about $58 billion over the life of each plant due to avoided fossil fuel purchases that ratepayers will not have to pay. We will also get cleaner air resulting from about 250 tons of CO2 that won’t be emitted.

For the past five decades, Florida has had five nuclear reactors reliably providing a huge supply of zero-emission energy. With only a few exceptions, they have operated continuously at high capacity. They have been one of the most cost-effective components of our state’s energy portfolio. As Floridians, we’ve enjoyed these benefits for many years.

Once a new nuclear plant is constructed, it saves money, operates with very low fuel costs and generates massive amounts of electricity continuously without emitting any carbon into the air. These benefits are well worth it.
Jerry Paul, nuclear engineer, Port Charlotte

Nuclear Plant Prepared for Storms, Sea-Level Rise, Waste

Jan. 30, 2013 — Guest Editorial in the Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers by Joe Jensen, Site Vice President of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Many of his points apply universally. Read the article here.

PSC to Get Update on Progress Nuke Plant

Dec. 27, 2012 — The state Public Service Commission has scheduled a Jan. 7 meeting to get updated information about Progress Energy Florida’s idled nuclear-power plant at Crystal River. Progress has been studying whether to repair or permanently shut down the plant, which has not operated since 2009 because of cracks in a containment building. A consultant’s report this year said it would cost a minimum of $1.5 billion to repair the plant and that the amount could go as high as $3.43 billion in a “worst-case scenario.” Progress, the state Office of Public Counsel, the Florida Industrial Power Users Group and other customer organizations reached a settlement agreement early this year that dealt with the repair issue. That agreement, in part, offered financial incentives for Progress to start repair work by the end of 2012. But a company attorney informed the PSC in October that starting work during that time frame was unlikely.

 

PSC Crystal River Plant Update

News Service FloridaLink to YouTube Video – Progress Energy has not decided yet whether it will repair or retire the damaged Crystal River nuclear power plant but the company expects to make that decision in the coming months.

On Tuesday, two company executives updated the Public Service Commission on that process and said the decision will likely come between December and next summer.

John Burnett of Progress Energy Florida, which merged with Duke Energy this year, said four technical review teams are compiling information about the pros and cons of repairing the unit or retiring it. That information will then go to the utility’s top managers and board of directors.

An independent review by Zapata, Inc. found the cost of repairing the Crystal River plant would range from $1.5 billion to $3.4 billion in a worst-case scenario.

Burnett says it would be technically feasible to start a repair job by December but very unlikely since the company is still crunching the numbers on whether it makes sense to fix the damaged reactor.

“The earliest we believe that all that information could be collected and put in a format that’s appropriate for senior management and the board is December of this year. The outer bound estimate would be no later than summer of next year and in between is a middle case for when we would expect that decision to be ripe to be made.”

One of the other crucial questions still up in the air is whether Progress Energy’s insurer, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, would pay some of the repair costs so customers don’t get stuck with the bill. Those negotiations continue.

Commissioner Eduardo Balbis of the Public Service Commission says Progress-Duke Energy will have the final say on whether to repair or retire the Crystal River plant. But after that decision, the PSC will decide if the company can bill customers for any costs.

“Ultimately it’s Duke’s decision and what the commission will do is review that decision to make sure it’s the right one after it’s been made.”

 

Nuclear Energy is Beneficial to Florida’s Future

October 3, 2012, Miami Herald – Statewide, Florida has 70 power plants totaling about 60,000 megawatts of electricity to serve 19 million residents and thousands of businesses. Since 1972, a significant portion of this has been provided by nuclear power plants quietly generating about 4,000 MW of clean, emission-free, reliable energy.

These high capacity plants operate continuously for many years with few disruptions and without reliance on intermittent fuel supplies or sunny or windy days. Their operating costs are very low because of the energy content of nuclear fuel which allows a nuclear plant to operate for 18 months on one fuel batch. A similar coal plant would require 15,000 railroad cars of coal to provide the same 18 months of energy. Accordingly, the cost of electricity from nuclear plants has been among the lowest compared with other power plant types.

Florida hasn’t built a new nuclear plant since 1983, yet Florida’s population has doubled since then.

Only about 13 percent of Florida’s electricity now comes from emission-free nuclear energy. Fortunately the state and its utilities have considered modest development of additional nuclear energy. FPL is investing in expansion of two existing nuclear plants which will combine to provide an additional 500 MW of electricity without building an additional plant. This is a good step.

Of course, the construction costs for a nuclear power plant are greater than other types of plants. But over time, the overall costs of electricity from nuclear plants tends to be the lowest because nuclear plants operate for decades and supply massive quantities of electricity from nuclear fuel that’s very low cost compared to the costs of fossil fuels.

As ratepayers, we should closely scrutinize the costs of power plants. But remember, a diversity of energy sources offers benefits to Florida. Natural gas is inexpensive today, but was the most expensive energy source two years ago. Our Public Service Commission should apply this scrutiny for us, ensuring we have the best energy mix. We must, however, recognize the long-term value of investing in nuclear energy as a key part of Florida’s future.

James Tulenko, professor emeritus, nuclear engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville

Read more here.

Correcting the Record on Nuclear Opponents’ Conference Call

The Energy Information Center responds to conference call held by anti-nuclear energy opponents. Link to printable press release.
Venice, FL – October 3, 2012. Today a small group opposing nuclear power plants in Florida held a media conference call to re-state their beliefs about a lawsuit they filed to cut off funding for proposed nuclear plants in Florida. Although no members of the public nor technical experts were allowed to provide balanced input, the Energy Information Center monitored the event and noticed multiple miss-statements designed to falsely characterize the rules and laws relating to Florida’s system for developing a reliable portfolio of energy supply. The opponents relied heavily on hyperbole and ad hominem to characterize nuclear plant financing as a “tax”.

To the contrary, says experts at the Energy Information Center, www.energyinfocenter.org. In a regulated utility state such as Florida, all of the power plants we need for electricity supply are developed by utilities under a system whereby the cost of the electricity is capped by a government agency (the Florida Public Service Commission or PSC). In return for the regulatory caps, the utilities are reimbursed by ratepayers for the costs they must spend to plan, design, build and operate those plants.

Those costs are approved only after a public hearing conducted by the PSC and only if it is determined that the expenditures meet the legal test of being “prudent”. Typically, this “prudency” hearing is conducted after the plant is constructed and supplying electricity. The legislatures of Florida and other states recognized, however, that because nuclear plants take longer to build, the delay in holding prudency hearings would result in unnecessary costs for financing which ratepayers would later be obligated to pay. Therefore legislation was passed in multiple states to allow “pay-as-you-go” financing whereby the PSC conducts annual hearings to consider reimbursements periodically. This modified system also applies to integrated gas combined cycle power plants.

As stated by Jerry Paul, Contributing Expert to the Energy Information Center and a ratepayer in Florida who attended the call, “[t]here is no reason to pay interest on debt for building a plant when we could pay as we go.” The savings is estimated to be almost $2 billion for a typical 2-reactor power plant. “If the law were repealed, my fellow Florida ratepayers and I would pay more for our electricity, not less.”

The opponents, including 2 of the 160 members of the Florida Legislature, have been campaigning against the law for a number of years. During the call, the opponents argued that the law should be repealed because “these plants may never get built”. But, as pointed out by James Tulenko, Professor Emeritus, University of Florida Department of Nuclear Engineering who also attended the call, “90% of the cost recovery in the request for reimbursement before the PSC has been for expansion of existing nuclear power plants providing an additional 590 Megawatts of clean, emission-free electricity without building a new plant. Those expansions, called EPUs, are nearly complete and already supplying much of their new output to the electric grid.”

Paul also pointed out that a typical nuclear plant saves additional money due to the avoided expense of the fossil fuel purchases necessary for alternative base load power plants – almost $4 billion savings for the current nuclear plant expansions which make up most of the current expenses being considered by the Public Service Commission.

“This fuel cost savings is more than the cost of the expansions themselves,” said Paul. “That’s smart economics,” he said, “and it’s worth the investment for cleaner air from nuclear plants which emit no greenhouse gases.”

During the call, opponents also charged that the law was adopted as a “last minute amendment that had never been discussed”.

“This is false”, said Paul who served in the Florida Legislature until 2004 when he was appointed by the President to become Deputy Administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration within the U.S. Department of Energy. “This concept was discussed nationally as a follow-on to the Federal 2005 Energy Policy Act as part of a dialogue state-by-state on how to facilitate more clean energy including solar, wind and nuclear.”

Paul, a DOE official, was invited back to Florida in the Fall of 2005 to provide DOE input on Florida’s potential energy policy to be developed for the legislative session in 2006 when the bill became law. “This concept was discussed in the public panel discussions long before the legislature even filed its energy bill in the Spring of 2006.”

Contact Jerry Paul, Energy Information Center, jpaul@energyinfocenter.org 941-662-7874. The Energy Information Center is an independent organization that serves as a clearinghouse for public discussion on facts related to energy topics including opinions by experts in the energy field. EIC focuses on facts that are commonly unknown or under-reported. EIC’s experts volunteer time and experience to dispel myths that are based upon inaccurate technical information or based upon activist messaging that is biased.

Jerry Paul: Invest in Florida’s nuclear future

“My View,” Tallahassee Democrat, Sept. 11, 2012 – Amid Public Service Commission hearings that continue this week on nuclear cost recovery, it is important to pause and reflect on this component of our energy portfolio that quietly supplies massive amounts of clean, cost-effective electricity across our state each day. Since the 1970s, we Floridians have enjoyed output from five nuclear reactors that have produced the cheapest portion of our electricity mix — and the cleanest component.

Recently, two of those plants have begun receiving upgrades that expand their output by 490 megawatts, enough to supply nearly 1 million homes with reliable, zero-emission electricity.

These are positive trends.

The increases in output are projected to reduce annual fossil fuel use by the equivalent of 6 million barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 million tons over the life of those plants. The expense saved due to avoided fuel costs is greater than the costs of the projects themselves. This is smart economics for Florida ratepayers.

The key to a sound energy delivery system is diversity. Certainly, natural gas and coal play key roles in this mix, because of their abundant supply and low costs. Solar, too, is important as a zero-emission source that can supply energy during peak periods when the sun provides strong energy output that can be harvested. Nuclear is instrumental as a “base-load” source, supplying large quantities of zero-emission electricity continuously. Like skill positions on a sports team, these diverse energy supply components provide a solid roster for success.

It is true that the up-front construction costs for nuclear plants tend to be greater than other plants. But once built, nuclear plants are cost-effective, because their operating costs are so low, the plants are so large, and they operate continuously for decades.

Certainly there are opponents of nuclear energy. Some raise sincere questions, the answers to which are favorable to nuclear energy. Others simply recycle myths that have been debunked over the last 50 years of successfully operating more than 100 reactors in America. We cannot let these opponents divert our attention from the need for a diverse energy supply portfolio.

Nuclear energy has served Florida well for five decades. We should continue to invest in this trend for our energy future.

Jerry Paul is a nuclear engineer, attorney and a former Florida legislator. He was principal deputy administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration and was a distinguished fellow for energy policy at the University of Tennessee Howard Baker Center for Public Policy. He is a Contributing Expert to the Energy Information Center (www.energyinfocenter.org). Contact him at jpaul@energyinfocenter.org.

Merger Between Duke Energy and Progress Energy Complete

For now, the company is still known as Progress Energy in the Florida service territory; Vinny Dolan will continue to be a familiar face in the community as state president.

July 3, 2012 – Duke Energy Corporation today confirmed the closing of its previously announced merger with Progress Energy Inc., effective July 2, 2012.

The new company will be known as Duke Energy and will remain headquartered in Charlotte, with substantial operations in Raleigh, N.C. Duke Energy will trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK.

In accordance with the terms of the merger agreement, Progress Energy Inc. has become a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Duke Energy, creating the country’s largest electric utility as measured by enterprise value, market capitalization, generation assets, customers and numerous other criteria.

Duke Energy also announced today the newly constituted board of directors has appointed Jim Rogers as president and chief executive officer of the combined company, effective immediately. Rogers will also maintain his responsibilities as chairman of the company’s board. Bill Johnson has resigned as president and chief executive officer of the combined company, by mutual agreement.

“The new Duke Energy will be better able to serve our 7.1 million customers’ energy needs in a safe, reliable, affordable and increasingly clean manner,” said Rogers, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Duke Energy. “As a combined organization, we will work to deliver benefits to our customers, create value for our shareholders, and enhance the career opportunities of our employees.”

Rogers continued, “Over the last several months, team members from Duke Energy and Progress Energy worked diligently to ensure we hit the ground running today – day one. I’d also like to thank the regulatory and legal teams that were instrumental in getting us over the finish line.

“I look forward to working together with the executives from Progress and all employees of the combined company to ensure we are constantly striving to improve our levels of safety, operational excellence and customer satisfaction,” he added. “I am committed to the successful execution of our strategy and am pleased to move forward as one company.”

“Having served as CEO of Duke and its predecessor companies for more than 23 years, Jim Rogers is well-suited to lead the integration effort and to drive our combined businesses forward,” said Ann Maynard Gray, lead director of Duke Energy’s board of directors. “The board of directors looks forward to working with Jim and the rest of the executive team to enhance our position as a utility with financial strength and a greater ability to meet the needs of our customers.” Ms. Gray continued, “Bill Johnson has been instrumental in helping us close the merger with Progress Energy, and we wish him well in his future endeavors.”

Jerry Paul: Nuclear power is one path to energy future

Tallahassee Democrat, Mar. 19, 2012

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jerry Paul

Jerry Paul is a nuclear engineer who has represented parts of Charlotte, Lee and Sarasota counties in the Florida House, was the principal deputy administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration and was the distinguished fellow for energy policy at the University of Tennessee Howard Baker Center for Public Policy. A resident of Venice, Florida, he is a contributing expert to the Energy Information Center.

Re: “Nuclear power is the wrong path for Florida” (My View, March 11).

Ellen Vancko lays her case in opposition to new nuclear plants in Florida. I have had the pleasure of meeting Vancko and respect her views. As a Floridian and former nuclear reactor engineer, however, I offer an alternative perspective.

Although Vancko’s Washington-based organization does not openly oppose all nuclear energy, her column is decidedly biased against this energy form.

Vancko builds her case by casting nuclear power plants as too costly. This is simply factually incorrect. A recognized benchmark for comparing costs of competing energy supplies is the Annual Energy Outlook published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. It shows that the projected cost (including costs of constructing and operating a power plant) for nuclear is 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 21.1 cents/kWh for solar energy and 24.3 cents/kWh for offshore wind power.

It is true that the construction component of nuclear plant costs is higher than other sources because nuclear plants are larger and the high-grade materials are expensive. Anti-nuclear activists exploit this fact by focusing only on this cost component. What they fail to tell us, however, is that the total cost of nuclear becomes less than most all other sources because:

  • These large plants produce massive amounts of electricity.
  • The plants operate continuously, regardless of available sun and wind.
  • The cost of nuclear fuel (compared with natural gas, for example) is very low and remains stable.
  • Nuclear plants operate for 40 to 60 years or more.

Vancko attempts to bolster her arguments with third-party validation in the form of a report titled “Big Risks, Better Alternatives” that her organization purchased. This report, however, relies upon skewed cost estimates for competing energy sources by citing to itself as an authority, rather than the accepted U.S. government data.

Further, the column repeats the false claim that Florida’s Legislature adopted a new law proving a huge benefit to utilities by allowing them to recover nuclear plant costs “in advance.”

Remember, here in Florida, we ratepayers invest in infrastructure through our utility bills. We reimburse the utility companies for their power plant construction, financing and operation costs. This applies to all types of power plants. Further, we pay only an amount that the Public Service Commission approves as “prudent” expenditures following a public hearing. There are two plant types (integrated gas combined cycle and nuclear) that take longer to construct, so Florida law allows expenses to be reimbursed as they are incurred to avoid financing charges during that period. This is not payment “in advance,” but rather, “pay-as-you-go.”

The secret that none of these so-called consumer advocates will tell you is that pay-as-you-go financing saves ratepayers money by avoiding the need to pay interest on debt (which we ratepayers would have to reimburse). For a typical two-unit nuclear plant, the ratepayer savings is $300 million to $400 million during the construction period alone and as much as $2 billion over the life of the plant.

Typically, anti-nuclear activists lose credibility by offering no practical energy supply alternatives. Vancko attempts to avoid this pitfall by suggesting solar and efficiency. Indeed, we should harvest energy from the sun and we should seek greater efficiency wherever possible. But solar energy and efficiency improvements are not substitutes for the large quantities of continuous “base-load” electricity supply required by Florida’s residential, business and industrial users.

The Energy Information Administration Energy Outlook forecasts a 24-percent increase in demand for electricity through 2035. No amount of conservation will eliminate the need for additional base load electricity supply.

Florida must maintain a reliable electricity supply from a balanced package of sources. Each source performs differently. One source is not a replacement for another. Nuclear energy is an important component of the package and, based upon credible independent data, is very cost effective.

Nuclear energy is one of multiple necessary paths for Florida’s energy supply.

 

One Year After Fukushima, Nuclear Energy in America and Florida
On the anniversary of the events occurring in Fukushima Japan that focused our attention on nuclear power, Jerry Paul, an EIC Contributing Expert, has posted a new column that discussing America’s response to those events during the last year, addressing the implications for American nuclear power, and urging a rational balanced reaction. “We timed the public announcement of the Energy Information Center with this anniversary because we know that there will be anti-nuclear activists who seize upon the date to further spread mis-statements and even myths about energy’ says Paul. “Those are the very tactics that created the need for fact-centered technical experts to speak out which is why we created Energy Information Center. So it is fitting that the first column focus on the Fukushima event.” Read more.

 

March 2012 – News Alert: Energy Information Center Announces Public Introduction
Prompted by recent published misstatements about nuclear energy, a group of technical experts have formed the Energy Information Center (EIC) to communicate technically-accurate information about energy issues to the public.

“While reading public reporting about topics such as the Fukushima, Japan nuclear event and debates about Pay-As-You-Go Financing of new nuclear energy plants in Florida, I frequently found myself in conversations with fellow nuclear engineers and other colleagues who shared a similar view that the public messaging about energy topics is increasingly dominated by misstatements and even falsehoods leading to myths,” said former state representative Jerry Paul of Englewood, Florida a founder of the EIC. Read more in the March 8, 2012 Press Release.