The Indiana General Assembly’s Regulatory Flexibility Committee (for which I was once counsel – I know you are all very impressed) will be studying nuclear power plants.
One thing they will have to address is what went wrong at Marble Hill. If they plan to go down the nuclear reactor avenue at some point in the future, they’ll have to figure out how to avoid an expensive debacle like that.
There is a Time Magazine article from 1984 that discusses the fate of Marble Hill.
Marble Hill has already eaten up some $2.5 billion, making it the most expensive nuclear power project ever to be dropped. The decision brings the total number of cancellations of U.S. nuclear plants since 1974 to 100.
Public Service began constructing Marble Hill in 1978. The original cost estimate for the plant, situated near the small town of Madison, was about $1.4 billion. But Marble Hill ran into the same sort of quality-control problems that have bedeviled the rest of the nuclear power industry, and costs shot upward. Construction crews, for instance, routinely failed to repair properly the air pockets that formed in the concrete as it was being poured. Last month a task force estimated the total price of completing the project would be $7.7 billion or more.
Marble Hill’s voracious appetite for cash has left the utility strapped. Just to continue generating power to its 540,000 customers, Public Service said it will immediately need to boost rates 14%. Later the utility plans to apply for additional rate increases to begin paying off its $2.2 billion share of the construction bill.
(There is also some information here, but the site is riddled with questionable spelling, making me question the accuracy of the information.)
Currently the discussion of nuclear issues by the Reg-Flex Committee looks like it’s slated to take place on the afternoon of September 22, 2009 in the Senate Chambers.
If you’r ever in Madison, Indiana its worth a drive out to the old Marble Hill site. You can drive right back in, next to the old towers and take a peek around. It’s a bit spooky, but because they never went on-line, you don’t need to worry about radioactive zombies coming after you. I believe eventually even the towers will be torn down as the site is being cannibalized for materials over the years.
I also would add that what makes the site interesting is the sheer waste involved. In 1984 a billion dollars was a lot of money. Think about that. Outside of waging war, it is hard to waste money on this scale.
First, I’m a big supporter of nuclear power. Second, Marble Hill may be the coolest place I have ever visited. I toured it a couple time while in about the 4th grade (my dad worked for the state back then and was somehow involved in the closing). I can remember then, even at 9 or 10 years old that there seemed to be a lot of waste – parts everywhere, workers everywhere but very few actually doing anything. And the stories I still hear from people that worked there, or were salesman to the contractors, about blatant theft of materials, tools, etc.
That project had great intentions, but no oversight.
It shouldn’t be used as a reason to not build nuclear plants – just as a model for how not to manage the construction.
But, again, that place was COOL!
I’m happy this is being looked into. We all know about the nuclear power plants that went wrong, but Europe derives an awful lot of their power from nuclear plants, and has been operating them safely for decades. While the explosive growth of wind power is exciting, Nuclear power is worth investigating.
Gotta road trip that site, btw!
I’m warming a bit to the idea of nuclear energy. Some questions to be answered as far as I can tell:
1. Where do we put the waste?
2. How do we control costs of construction on a project that huge?
3. How do we ensure no short cuts on construction safety?
4. With a project this huge and with such potentially significant environmental concerns, how do we guard against operator bankruptcy?
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
2. No idea
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor (Yes I know this contradicts point 1.)
4. No idea
It is really interesting to hear people talk about visiting Marble Hill to see the site. I grew up a few miles from the site, and we used to go out there as teenagers, of course it is rumored to be haunted, etc. A very creepy place, and interesting to hear stories about the problems from a non-local perspective.
Doug,
You worry to much about the little stuff. It does not matter where we put the waste, it will be around for thousands of years causing problems no matter where we put it. As for controlling costs, the power companies and their chosen regulators will just pass it along to us. But we will save on overall electrical use, as we will all be glowing in the dark and will not need lights at night.
I think they could be built safely and the cost amortized over 100 years or so, and if we do not let mitch and his cronies control the process, it should get built safely and within budget. And it should be built in Carmel. Use the water out of Geist to cool it.
I really wish people would get over their fear of nuclear waste. Our coal plants are spewing out far more radiation than nuclear would, but we still hold off on nuclear plants because we don’t want to “glow”.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
While we debate nuclear, we breathe in coal ash radiation. No, it isn’t perfect, but it is still better than coal.
I’ve become a bit more enthusiastic about nuclear because its waste is so much less voluminous that the waste and byproducts of coal. Our coal slurry ponds from the washing of coal, the ash ponds, the altered landscape–these are permanent, as far as I can tell. Nuclear waste is just as permanent, but there is less of it.