Latest Headlines
- Costco Nine Mile Road Plans Set For Development Review Meeting
- Scattered Showers And Thunderstorms Likely Saturday And Sunday
- Lightning Strike Causes Water Outage, Boil Notice In Cottage Hill
- A Very Good Boy: ECSO K-9 Streeter Awarded Medal Of Courage For Jumping Off Bridge After Suspect
- Alabama Death Row Inmate Executed At Atmore Prison For 1998 Shooting Of Father Of Seven
- Plans Refiled For Circle K At Highway 95A, Quintette Road; Intersection Improvements Proposed
- Two-Time Super Bowl Champion Anthony Pleasant Meet & Greet, Catfish Fundraiser Saturday In Century
- Officials Warn Of Possible Alligator In Flomaton’s Hurricane Lake
- Hank’s Furniture to Pay $110K In EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
- Voter Registration And Party Change Deadline Is Monday, July 22
Nuclear Power Plant? Gulf Power’s McDavid Purchases At $3.7 Million For 763 Acres
February 18, 2010
Gulf Power’s plans for a possible power plant — even a nuclear plant — in McDavid are still unclear.
The first new nuclear power plant in the United States in over 30 years will become a reality in Georgia thanks to $8 billion in federal loan guarantees announced by President Barack Obama.
The new plant will be operated by Southern Company, the parent company of Gulf Power.
It’s been nearly a year since NorthEscambia.com was the first to report that Gulf Power was buying land in North Escambia for a possible power generation plant — maybe even a nuclear plant. Over the months since our March, 2009, report, Gulf Power has continued to purchase land. So far, Escambia County tax records show that Gulf Power has paid $3,719,700 for approximately 763 acres of land in the Cox, Roach, and Courtney Road area of McDavid.
“We are looking for property to purchase in that area for a generating facility. What kind of generating facility it will be has not been determined at this point,” Gulf Power Company Manager of Public Affairs Sandy Sims told NorthEscambia.com last year. Sims said the plant could be nuclear, natural gas powered or even an advanced technology like wind or solar. “We really can’t rule out any possibility right now.” Since that time the power company has been silent about its plans.
One clue to Gulf Power’s plans might come from a speech to a Northwest Florida chamber of commerce.
In August of last year, CEO Susan Story told the Panama City Beach Chamber of Commerce that nuclear energy and biomass — items such as wood waste, wood, municipal waste and other forms of waste — would become viable options, according to a report in the Panama City News Herald. Story told the newspaper that Gulf Power was looking at potential nuclear power sites in Northwest Florida “as we speak”.
Whatever the type of power generation facility — if anything — is build in McDavid, the earliest it would likely produce its first kilowatt of electricity would be the year 2020, and perhaps as late as 2025.
Obama said this week that his administration is committed to clean energy for the county’s future.
“Whether it’s nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas, instead of here in the United States of America. And that’s not a future that I accept,” the president said.
The new federal government guarantees through the Department of Energy to operate two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Burke, Georgia. The plant is expected to create approximately 3500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs. When the Georgia nuclear reactors come online, they will provide reliable electricity for 1.4 million people in Georgia.
Pictured above: This property in the 200 block of Roach Road that was purchased by Gulf Power Company last year. NorthEscambia.com photo, click to enlarge.
Comments
25 Responses to “Nuclear Power Plant? Gulf Power’s McDavid Purchases At $3.7 Million For 763 Acres”
I think it’s great, better than any third world country, that’s for sure!!! It’s about time this green stuff comes to an end.
ethanol energy content (LHV) = 75,700 Btu/gallon
HHV = 84,000 Btu/gallon
Gasoline: LHV= 115,000 Btu/gallon
HHV = 125,000 Btu/gallon
LHV is lower heating value or the chemical energy not considering condensation of water vapor
HHV is higher heating value or the chemical energy including condensation of water vapor
Btu or BTU is British Thermal Units or the energy required to heat one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. I could just as easily have given it in Joules or foot-pounds, but this is the most common way of expressing it in the USA
For our purposes, just consider the ratio of 115/75.7 to see that a gallon of gasoline has about 52 percent more energy per gallon than ethanol does.
Or looking at it the other way, ethanol has about 66 percent as much chemical energy as the same volume of gasoline.
Assuming it could burn either just as well, a car would go 52 percent further on a tankful of gasoline than it would on a tankful of ethanol or 66 percent as far on a tank of ethanol as it would on a tank of gasoline.
Ten percent ethanol blend should yield 0.9xg plus 0.1(gx0.66) or 0.966 times as far as pure gasoline. Ethanol isn’t added to help mileage but to reduce air polution without creating water pollution in case of a spill.
If ethanol costs 66 percent as much as gasoline, you pay the same price per mile driven using ethanol or gasoline.
David keeping it simple
David,
Thanks for the info. I’m glad the engine thing has been sorted out since we use 10% ethanol now. Anyway, I still question the validity of using ethanol. I don’t know the new numbers but I do know that, along with ethanol requiring more fuel to prduce than it generates as you state, it dropps gas mileage. If the numbers haven’t changed significantly in the last few years then sure for a given gallon of gas you are emmiting less harmful particles but the number of gallons you now have to use probably offsets any savings. Anyway…
Hopefully McDavid can get past all the crap and build the nuclear plant. It really is the best source of baseload energy for the US.
David, thanks so much.
You are right I mean’t Brazil. It still hadn’t dawned on me that I said chili.
My brain has been mush today. lol
I watch a lot of the science, history and health channels.
None of your business, have you seen Al?
it worked with my Pinto
> David wanting a nuclear car so nobody will dare rear-end me
That’s a classic..
REGARDING:
“Even Chile run’s all their cars on corn instead of fossil fuels..
Third world countries do better than america!
As far as I’m concerned this thing should have been fought
tooth and nail and not allowed to build.
Power to the ppl!
Fire them all, everytime you go to the poles.”
Nobody runs all vehicles on corn. In fact, corn uses more energy than it produces. Sugarcane based ethanol, however, produces more fuel than it uses and is popular in Brazil, never heard of Chile using it, though. Probably means I am behind on events.
If you voted against everybody at the polls, that would be very much like not going in the first place.Bbetter to vote for those you like, against those you dislike.
Power to the people is an excellent thought. Get the people safe, reliable power not dependent on international trade, alliances with dictators, funding to terrorists or kick-backs to the corn state with the first primaries or back-room deals in Congress.
That would be nuclear power, it seems. President Obama is right in pushing for more of it and those who oppose him are just doing it because he is from Hawaii.
REGARDING: the claim that ethanol harms engines: It did harm natural rubber fuel lines back when they were used but does not hurt synthetic rubber lines. It also would cause stopped up fuel filters when first put in tanks with years of build-up because it would loosen it and run it in the fuel lines. Now that nearly all gasoline has about ten percent ethanol, the problem is behind.
University of Florida has system in trials which converts all cellulosic materials into ethanol so pulp wooders could be providing fuel for your car in the near future. That way you don’t have to use food plants or raise the price of sugar for my candy.
Methanol, unlike ethanol, does cause engine problems because it dissolves or reacts with aluminum and cars have plenty of aluminum parts in contact with fuel. It’s a shame too, because we have an abundant supply of methane which could be converted to methanol and provide domestic transportation fuel.
On the other hand, methane is a good fuel when compressed and would be particularly sweet in a hybrid system. That would extend its range greatly. It’s safer than gasoline.
David wanting a nuclear car so nobddy will dare rear-end me
I always go GREEN
DAVID HUIE GREEN
I have done research.
Etainol is already in our gas only in a small proportion.
Only about 13% of gas is even used in our cars.
The rest goes right out of the tail pipe and is released
into the air as 5 different chemicals that are harmful
to our planet, including carbon dioxide.
I can name them all if you like.
Everyone has enough ground to plant a garden and feed
themselves if they have to.
However, Clean air is another thing.
Corn is just one example. My point was this huge monstrosity
is junk. Their are BETTER ways. More up to date ways to
handle this problem.
I myself have a hybrid. No! I don’t always drive it. But some months
I drive it most. It depends on my mood, or whatever else is going on.
It is still my opinion we need to go GREEN!
Darryl, your concerns about reprocessing aren’t really valid. Reprocessing is an absolutely great idea in that is greatly reduces the waste. One gripe that people have is that reprocessing gets plutonium out in the open that terrorists can steal and use for bombs. In reality this is nonsence. Anyone that can actually build a nuclear weapon doesn’t need to steal the plutonium from us. Either they can get it themselves or they get it 100X easier from a rogue nation. Our plutonium will just go back into new fuel. And the dirty bomb idea is only a little off. A dirty bomb can be made with ANY radioactive material. There is now way they would try to steal spent fuel for a bomb when they can get Cobalt 60 from the food and medical industries. In short, reprocessing really only has upsides to it if we ever get around to it.
‘none of your business’ needs to do a little research. Ethanol (or corn as you call it) has a lot of drawbacks. First, it’s bad on your engine. Cars will not last as long leading to more waste. Second, if we were to use Ethanol instead of fossil fuels, food would so expensive we might just have to start eating like they do in Chile.
This whole thing just torks me off.
When will we GO GREEN !!!
Why do we not change when we know sooooo much about the
what we are doing to our world.
Are we stupid ????
Even Chile run’s all their cars on corn instead of fossil fuels..
Third world countries do better than america!
As far as I’m concerned this thing should have been fought
tooth and nail and not allowed to build.
Power to the ppl!
Fire them all, everytime you go to the poles.
Thank you, Mr Green. Glad to hear that. Janice
For the Nay Sayers,
1. The current coal plant exposes us to more radiation than a nuclear plant. The nuclear plant can not have ANY emissions that are radioactive. PERIOD. They must prove that all detectable radiation is natural and not coming from the plant or they are shut down. Not so with a coal plant. The exhaust ALWAYS contains a small amount of radioactivity. So no glowing dear (unless they already are). Sorry but you will have to continue to hunt them the old fashioned way.
2. Large storage containment, completely sealed, is used on site. Continuously monitored. Of course it would be better to use Yucca Mountain where we have spent Billions on a storage site but we can’t use because of people who ignore facts and go with emotions instead.
3. Don’t compare 3mile or Chernobyl. 3 Mile island, even under a partial melt down, contained the radiation to the inside of the containment building. Chernobyl is an insane design no other country would have ever allowed to be built.
BTW, there are over 100 nuclear reactors in the USA already and over 30 research reactors. Of course that does not include the military and government reactors that are not reported.
At the Turkey Point nuclear plant down near Miami they have these big cooling canals for moving seawater in and out of the plant. On a dark night, the sight fishing in those canals is fantastic.
A friend of mine works with the 3 facilities up here in NC and he told me new facilities are coming, so I’ve read some on them. It seems the current best thing to do with the spent fuel is encase it in steel/concrete. It’ll contain the radiation until we figure out a way to deal with it, and it is by far better than any coal fired plant which either puts heavy metals into the air, or in newer plants with scrubbers, the contaminates directly into the ground through the ash. Mercury, aluminum and arsenic are by-products of coal plants.
One thing we should not do per some nuclear scientist is do facilities that recycle spent fuel, such as what Bill Gates has just promoted. The waste product from this is material that is really dangerous and suitable for dirty bombs if it fell into the wrong hands.
Unfortunately the clean energies are limited in technological development and not all are suitable for all regions, but if Germany, who’s sunny days are very limited, is making great strides in solar panels, along with China who has production running at a rate that their price has dropped 50%, then we are definitely falling behind in these technologies.
For the area down there that I know has had job loss after job loss, this is potentially good news if they go forward.
Anyone want to read on coal fired plants and how they are not a suitable alternative:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/movies/29coal.html
http://www.burningthefuture.org/show.asp?content_id=14089
Opposition will always surface just like it has with mice, owls, trees, flowers, drill don’t drill, eat meat non’t eat meat. If opposition is strong enough, well we will just lose those jobs to another state. Just think, we could all be riding horses, wagons or just walking. I agree that we might be healther. Or maybe the opposition aganist medical advances could have been stopped. So progress or poverty.
I am in favor of building a nuclear plant !!! Start tommorrow !!!!
BUT, don’t forget it will take a min of 10 years just to get the permints!!!!!
And don’t forget Greenpeace…..I am sure they will move in today
just to fight it….And don’t to call our beloved county comm and
tell him thanks for all his support in this matter.
BUT, think of all the GREAT paying jobs a nuclear plant will bring
into North Escambia !!!!!
REGARDING:
“My concern is the neuclear waste. The way I understand it, this stuff never goes away. They have very few places to store what they’ve already generated.”
Actually, it does go away through radioactive decay. The most radioactive isotopes have the shortest half lives (time it takes half the original mass to decay) and break down quickly. The least radioactive isotopes have the longest half lives and will be around for billions of years. On the other hand, those isotopes already exist because of that very factor.
The material can be reprocessed and reused so that you have very little waste. I have read the energy demands of the average person in a year produces waste volume about equal to the size of an asprin.
Radioactive waste can be stored mixed in a glass and is practically insoluble.
In contrast, coal has many radioactive isotopes going out the smokestack every second along with the sulfur compounds and increased deaths due to the vast amount of mining required, the increased shipping needed, and produces many tons of solid waste per person.
David downhill from any problems which might occur
My concern is the neuclear waste. The way I understand it, this stuff never goes away. They have very few places to store what they’ve already generated. I don’t see why they want to keep making more. Our area is one of the cleanest places to live. It has been reported to me that Brushy Creek and Perdido River are the two cleanest streams out of Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Escambia, in Florida, Baldwin, and Mobile counties in Alabama. Why do they want to mess with us? Janice Parker
Those glow in the dark deer will improve the night hunting. No I don’t hunt any more, I get more out of seeing the ones on my deer cam that got away. Still some nice 6 & 8 points running round.
deer already glow if you are using infrared for your fire hunting
nuclear used to be more expensive than coal due to the safety factors you need when dealing with radioactive material but then they raised the cost of coal
David for three antlered deer and other misconceptions
I think it should be a wind/solar type of power plant. The less polution the better. There is enough polution in Brewton, AL.. that’s why I moved from there, now they’re probably going to bring it the Northwest, FL area.. I guess I’ll have to move north!
Just the word nuclear is enough for concern, but it’s great news if it happens for jobs. Nuclear power plant in your back yard, maybe power cost will go down some, but that just being optimistic on my part. Only time will tell.
this is great news come deer hunting season u can just look for glowing deer????? glowing corn glowing cotton(new tend in fashion design)???? what will they come up with next,if they think this is such a good idea put this down in p’cola,,get rich quick for the people that sold land???maybe,, their laughing all the way to the bank