Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 8e036f97-f4bf-4b39-ae98-abf0525972c1
Document Type: esrp
Title: ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 9
Section ID: 9.2.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
es’ internet sites (http://www.doe.gov). NUREG-1555 9.2.2-4 October 1999 III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should review the alternative energy sources and combinations of sources available to the applicant, and categorize them as either competitive or noncompetitive with the proposed project. (1) For competitive alternatives, the reviewer should ensure that the energy source or system meet the following criteria: ` The energy conversion technology should be developed, proven, and available in the relevant region.(a) ` The alternative energy source should provide generating capacity equivalent to the capacity need established by the reviewer of ESRP 8.4. ` The capacity should be available within the timeframe determined for the proposed project. ` Use of the energy source is in accord with national policy goals for energy use. ` Federal, State, or local regulations do not prohibit or restrict the use of the energy source. ` There are no unusual environmental impacts or exceptional costs associated with the energy source that would make it impractical. ` The reviewer should ensure that the following energy sources have been considered by the applicant: - wind - geothermal - petroleum liquids - natural gas - hydropower - advanced nuclear - municipal solid wastes - biomass - coal - photovoltaic cells - solar thermal power - wood waste - energy crops October 1999 9.2.2-5 NUREG-1555 - advanced light-water reactor - other advanced systems (e.g. fuel cells, synthetic fuels, etc.) ` The reviewer should ensure that all alternative energy sources available have been evaluated using the criteria listed above to determine if the alternatives can be considered competitive with the proposed project. (2) For noncompetitive alternatives, the reviewer should ensure that the statements dismissing these alternatives are appropriately referenced, applied to the relevant regional system, and that the reasons for rejecting these alternatives have been provided. (3) For alternative