NationStates Jolt Archive

Three FPL solar plants weighed
The Public Service Commission is about to take up an FPL solar-energy proposal that has been endorsed by the state agency's staff.

State regulators on Tuesday will consider Florida Power & Light's request to build three solar plants that would include the largest of its type in the world.

The staff of the Public Service Commission backs the request, saying FPL's plans for 110 megawatts of solar power meet the requirements of a bill recently passed by the Legislature allowing for a utility to have full-cost recovery of renewable energy projects up to 110 megawatts.

The proposal includes a 25-megawatt plant in DeSoto County, which FPL says would be the largest photovoltaic facility in the world, plus a 75-megawatt solar thermal plant in Martin County and a 10-megawatt photovoltaic at the Kennedy Space Center.

Last September, Lew Hay, chief executive of FPL Group, the parent of the utility, attended an environmental conference in New York with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and former President Bill Clinton. Hay said FPL planned to build 300 megawatts of solar power in Florida.

FPL spokesman Mayco Villafaña said in an e-mail to The Miami Herald on Tuesday that the company's goal is still to build those 300 megawatts over the next seven years.

''We have not yet finalized the details on when the next phase of the expansion will take place,'' he said. ``. . . Between Florida and our national commitment (total 360 megawatts), we are now more than half way to meeting our 500 megawatt announcement we made at the 2007 Clinton Global Initiative Forum.''

NUCLEAR PLANS

Even so, solar remains a small part of FPL's plans to meet future energy needs. The utility is also seeking to build two nuclear plants at Turkey Point that would produce 2,200 megawatts -- seven times the size of its solar goal for Florida.

The average FPL customer is expected to pay an extra $2.50 a month next year to fund construction of the nuclear plants, which may not be in operation for another decade. Such charges were mandated by a bill passed by the Legislature.

FPL estimates that the solar projects will add 83 cents a year to the average homeowner's bill in 2011, the first year of full service for the three plants, and 31 cents a month over a 25-year period.

LEGISLATURE'S ROLE

At the last PSC hearing, Commissioner Nancy Argenziano complained that the Legislature had been taking actions on matters generally reserved for regulators.

''The Legislature has acted in three areas to eliminate ordinary shareholder and business risk, as a public policy matter, where utilities may have been reasonably expected to pursue an interest -- storm cost recovery, construction related to nuclear facilities, and the costs of renewable projects up to 110 MW,'' Argenziano said.

She asked at the July 1 meeting for a PSC review of all of FPL's charges, but none of the four other commissioners joined her in the request.

So, this is interesting and some big news for Florida's energy. And while I'm sure theres nobody here who's against solar power, I do wonder what people think about nuclear power. Indeed, this action by Florida Power & Light and just simply politics in general, sparks some intense debate amongst people I know about nuclear energy.

So, do you think Florida is moving in the right direction, energy-wise? Would you support this in your state? And.....are you for or against nuclear energy?

http://www.miamiherald.com/103/story/604804.html

if they are going to build a nuclear plant in florida shouldnt it be on a spot that will be above sea level when the plant comes online? what with the melting of the polar ice, it seems very short sighted to put anything long term in the miami area.

if they are going to build a nuclear plant in florida shouldnt it be on a spot that will be above sea level when the plant comes online? what with the melting of the polar ice, it seems very short sighted to put anything long term in the miami area.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. Anyway...I have no idea. All I can say is I'm sure it's heavily resistant to water due to the hurricane danger in that area. :confused:

The only thing I can think of is that they just felt it would be better down there to more easily power the tri-county area, Florida's most major section. West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami.

I've always been a fan of nuclear power, and I wouldn't mind seeing a few more nuclear power plants in my state. Hell, I don't think I'd object to living next to one.

Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. Anyway...I have no idea. All I can say is I'm sure it's heavily resistant to water due to the hurricane danger in that area. :confused:

The only thing I can think of is that they just felt it would be better down there to more easily power the tri-county area, Florida's most major section. West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami.

i assume its because they either already own the land or someone of great influence does.

while i think nuclear power should be considered it dont think it going to get past environmental and NIMBY interests when put in the heart of the miami area.

i assume its because they either already own the land or someone of great influence does.

while i think nuclear power should be considered it dont think it going to get past environmental and NIMBY interests when put in the heart of the miami area.
It seems that FP&L does indeed already own the land.

And also, to be fair....Turkey Point is like 25-30 miles south of Miami. It's in Miami-Dade county, but not in Miami city.

Nuclear is definitely a good move. I live in Ohio, USA, and most of our power is from coal-fired power plants. There have been some nuclear plant accidents, but they're often attributable to poor design and/or maintenance. Chernobyl was a combination of poor design and operator error; Three Mile Island was poor design and improper maintenance. Just keep some decent regulation on it.

It seems that FP&L does indeed already own the land.

And also, to be fair....Turkey Point is like 25-30 miles south of Miami. It's in Miami-Dade county, but not in Miami city.

yeah i checked it out on google earth. is it even 5 feet above sea level?

anyway i was listening to a radio program a year or so ago when on a road trip to yosemite.

the program was about creating small nuclear plants big enough to power a good sized city but not big enough to give people the heebie-jeebies over its radiation potential.

i think this is a better way to go than to build a scary behemoth that costs many billions of dollars and becomes the focus of every environmental/anti-nuclear group in the country.

while i think nuclear power should be considered it dont think it going to get past environmental and NIMBY interests when put in the heart of the miami area.
I forgot to tell you. There already is a nuclear power plant at Turkey Point. What we're doing is building 2 more plants there. I doubt it's gonna be an issue given that FP&L already owns the land and operates a nuclear power plant there.

yeah i checked it out on google earth. is it even 5 feet above sea level?
Most of Florida isn't....lol South East Florida is superrrrr low. Remember, all of this, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale /South Florida area was beach and everglades that runs into the bay....

I don't know the exact level above sea level, but it's close to at sea level.

anyway i was listening to a radio program a year or so ago when on a road trip to yosemite.

the program was about creating small nuclear plants big enough to power a good sized city but not big enough to give people the heebie-jeebies over its radiation potential.

i think this is a better way to go than to build a scary behemoth that costs many billions of dollars and becomes the focus of every environmental/anti-nuclear group in the country.

I have always been a supporter of nuclear power plants. Heck, for the longest time most of Europe's electricity was nuked. But I like your idea Ashmoria. Having smaller regional nuke plants which can be built faster and cheaper. It would be a lot better than the coal or gas powered plants.

I'm Floridian: And I'm for it.

I live in Miami, and I remember not too long ago we all lost power here when the grid when out, due to someone at a substation I believe the reason was.

Go nuclear energy! *Does a dance*

Oh, and I live in Mary's land.;)

I have always been a supporter of nuclear power plants. Heck, for the longest time most of Europe's electricity was nuked. But I like your idea Ashmoria. Having smaller regional nuke plants which can be built faster and cheaper. It would be a lot better than the coal or gas powered plants.

and i like the idea that if fresno wants "green" power, they can put their own nuclear plant in their own area instead of all california being powered by a huge plant located in....oh lets say nevada...where the locals arent all that interested in providing power to california.

First thats confusing...Poll about Nuclear Energy=Florida Solar Power...wut? lol

But, im not a big fan of Nuclear energy...I dont want Biloxi to be another Chernobyl...

if they are going to build a nuclear plant in florida shouldnt it be on a spot that will be above sea level when the plant comes online? what with the melting of the polar ice, it seems very short sighted to put anything long term in the miami area.

Not going to happen dude.

Not going to happen dude.

the nuclear plant or the rise of the oceans?

the nuclear plant or the rise of the oceans?

Neither. Hippe-douches will protest to much, and uninformed voters will believe their bull, and vote against it.

I took a trip through Ameron Intl, one of the largest pipe manufacturers, and they were telling us that one of their factories had been changed to produce piping and hubs for windmills. They said that Texas was building the largest wind farm in North America.

I've since been trying to locate at least a snippet of it to post it here, but no luck.

/getting-this-out-of-my-brain-so-that-i-don't-use-some-useless-thread-to-say-it

There's a bunch more reasons to implement nuclear energy, though. For one, we've been downblending Russian weapons-grade uranium to use in nuclear reactors. And there are new methods of removing the radioactive portions of used fuel rods from the unused or non-radioactive portions, reducing nuclear waste production and greatly reducing the need to enrich as much U-235 as we do now.

I'm comfortable with the idea of nuclear power and have never entertained any fears about it -- despite living fairly close to two nuclear power stations (1 of which has been in the process of being decommisioned since 1990).

It works and there's no chance of us running out of fuel.

Neither. Hippe-douches will protest to much, and uninformed voters will believe their bull, and vote against it.

i dont think that voting against it will stop sea levels from rising.

i dont think that voting against it will stop sea levels from rising.
Cnut simply wasn't trying.

if they are going to build a nuclear plant in florida shouldnt it be on a spot that will be above sea level when the plant comes online? what with the melting of the polar ice, it seems very short sighted to put anything long term in the miami area.

thats why you use fill, because floods happen.

I took a trip through Ameron Intl, one of the largest pipe manufacturers, and they were telling us that one of their factories had been changed to produce piping and hubs for windmills. They said that Texas was building the largest wind farm in North America.

I've since been trying to locate at least a snippet of it to post it here, but no luck.

/getting-this-out-of-my-brain-so-that-i-don't-use-some-useless-thread-to-say-it

There's a bunch more reasons to implement nuclear energy, though. For one, we've been downblending Russian weapons-grade uranium to use in nuclear reactors. And there are new methods of removing the radioactive portions of used fuel rods from the unused or non-radioactive portions, reducing nuclear waste production and greatly reducing the need to enrich as much U-235 as we do now.
Interesting....do you have a source on this? I'd like to read more on it....

The newer fast breeder reactor designs don't use the current fuel cycle (which wastes over 90% of the fuel).

The integral fast breeder reactor burns over 90% of the fuel, burns all of the long half-life waste, and the result is extremely hot, extremely short half-life waste that is safe within a year or so.

The reactor is also using fuel that is so intermixed with waste fissionables that its fuel cannot be diverted for use in weapons.

Solar and wind can provide residential power, but none of them are capable of providing industrial scale power - like the kind you need for steel and aluminium processing. You need nuclear for that.

I'm all for nuclear an' all. Provided that the reactors are well-treated and locked down, cuz' I don't want a glowing green double dick if I vacation down there.

I WAS going to suggest grinding up all the old people down there for energy (and food). There's so many of 'em, that Florida could supply the whole nation!