Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
America's 2 New Nukes Are on the Brink of Death
America's 2 New Nukes Are on the Brink of Death
Posted: 04/ 9/2012 6:20 pm
The only two U.S. reactor projects now technically under construction are on the brink of death for financial reasons.
If they go under, there will almost certainly be no new reactors built here.
The much mythologized "nuclear renaissance" will be officially buried, and the U.S. can take a definitive leap toward a green-powered future that will actually work and that won't threaten the continent with radioactive contamination.
As this drama unfolds, the collapse of global nuclear power continues, as two reactors proposed for Bulgaria have been cancelled, and just one of Japan's 54 licensed reactors is operating. That one may well close next month, leaving Japan without a single operating commercial nuke.
Georgia's double-reactor Vogtle project ...
Posted: 04/ 9/2012 6:20 pm
The only two U.S. reactor projects now technically under construction are on the brink of death for financial reasons.
If they go under, there will almost certainly be no new reactors built here.
The much mythologized "nuclear renaissance" will be officially buried, and the U.S. can take a definitive leap toward a green-powered future that will actually work and that won't threaten the continent with radioactive contamination.
As this drama unfolds, the collapse of global nuclear power continues, as two reactors proposed for Bulgaria have been cancelled, and just one of Japan's 54 licensed reactors is operating. That one may well close next month, leaving Japan without a single operating commercial nuke.
Georgia's double-reactor Vogtle project ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/nuclear-power_b_1406517.html
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Expert: Nuclear Power Is On Its Deathbed
Which serves only to demonstrate that Cooper dreams the same dreams... and, of course, that anyone can be an "expert" if they hold the views you like.
Yes... those degrees in English and Sociology really make one an expert nuclear power and economics.
Why oh why did I waste all those years on actual physics and econ courses? English and Sociology were much easier A's.
Nuclear giants RWE and E.ON drop plans to build new UK reactors
And other companies appear to be lining up to take their place. Not that either outcome would say anything about plants in the US.
Vogtle nuclear plant loan guarantees may not be finalized: NEI
Amd somehow in your imagination that supports the notion that both projects are "on the brink of death"? That must be a pretty big "brink".
U.S. Department of Energy must release Plant Vogtle loan guarantee credit subsidy data
And in your imagination, the only reason that a company would want to keep that data from public disclosure is because there's something in there that would keep them from getting the loan if the public knew about it... and the Obama administration is in on the deception?
Really?
And we can just ignore the flood of companies vying for new reactor builds in the next few years, right? They just haven't gotten the "brink" message.
He also says "As this drama unfolds, the collapse of global nuclear power continues" - which further demonstrates his illusion (and likely yours given your read on the UK reactors). The net global picture is almost entirely unchanged. Hardly a "collapse".
Which serves only to demonstrate that Cooper dreams the same dreams... and, of course, that anyone can be an "expert" if they hold the views you like.
Yes... those degrees in English and Sociology really make one an expert nuclear power and economics.
Why oh why did I waste all those years on actual physics and econ courses? English and Sociology were much easier A's.
Nuclear giants RWE and E.ON drop plans to build new UK reactors
And other companies appear to be lining up to take their place. Not that either outcome would say anything about plants in the US.
Vogtle nuclear plant loan guarantees may not be finalized: NEI
Amd somehow in your imagination that supports the notion that both projects are "on the brink of death"? That must be a pretty big "brink".
U.S. Department of Energy must release Plant Vogtle loan guarantee credit subsidy data
And in your imagination, the only reason that a company would want to keep that data from public disclosure is because there's something in there that would keep them from getting the loan if the public knew about it... and the Obama administration is in on the deception?
Really?
And we can just ignore the flood of companies vying for new reactor builds in the next few years, right? They just haven't gotten the "brink" message.
He also says "As this drama unfolds, the collapse of global nuclear power continues" - which further demonstrates his illusion (and likely yours given your read on the UK reactors). The net global picture is almost entirely unchanged. Hardly a "collapse".
In 2003 MIT was projecting the cost of nuclear in 2010 at $1500/kw. They projected a decline of $500/kw after the "renaissance" commenced to $1000/kw.
Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve?
By Joseph Romm
We’ve known for a while that the cost of new nuclear power plants in this country has been soaring.
Before 2007, price estimates of $4,000 per kilowatt for new U.S. nukes were common, but by Oct. 2007, Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, ”Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 to 6,000 per kilowatt.” That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt — $12 billion to $18 billion total! In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt. (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt.)
Historical data cost on the French nukes have not been as well publicized. But Arnulf Grubler of the International Institute for Applied Systems in Austria, using “largely unknown public records,” was able to perform an analysis of French (and U.S.) nuclear plants for Energy Policy, “The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing” [$ubreq]:
Average and min/max reactor construction costs per year of completion date for U.S. and France versus cumulative capacity completed.
Before discussing that paper, it is worth noting that renewable energy technologies have classic learning curves. Here is solar:
Wind power looks similar....
By Joseph Romm
We’ve known for a while that the cost of new nuclear power plants in this country has been soaring.
Before 2007, price estimates of $4,000 per kilowatt for new U.S. nukes were common, but by Oct. 2007, Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, ”Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 to 6,000 per kilowatt.” That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt — $12 billion to $18 billion total! In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt. (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt.)
Historical data cost on the French nukes have not been as well publicized. But Arnulf Grubler of the International Institute for Applied Systems in Austria, using “largely unknown public records,” was able to perform an analysis of French (and U.S.) nuclear plants for Energy Policy, “The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing” [$ubreq]:
Drawing on largely unknown public records, the paper reveals for the first time both absolute as well as yearly and specific reactor costs and their evolution over time. Its most significant finding is that even this most successful nuclear scale-up was characterized by a substantial escalation of real-term construction costs.
Average and min/max reactor construction costs per year of completion date for U.S. and France versus cumulative capacity completed.
Before discussing that paper, it is worth noting that renewable energy technologies have classic learning curves. Here is solar:
Wind power looks similar....
http://grist.org/nuclear/2011-04-06-does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Finishing what was started long ago:
Watts Bar
Unit 2 construction project
TVA is currently working to finish the partially completed Unit 2. Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. The official reason given for halting construction was a decrease in demand for electricity. Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being used on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit. Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2012.[1] The project is expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractor workers. Once finished, it is estimated to produce 1,180 megawatts and create around 250 permanent jobs.[2] Unit 2 is expected to be the first new nuclear reactor to come online in the USA in more than a decade.[3]
In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station
TVA is currently working to finish the partially completed Unit 2. Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. The official reason given for halting construction was a decrease in demand for electricity. Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being used on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit. Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2012.[1] The project is expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractor workers. Once finished, it is estimated to produce 1,180 megawatts and create around 250 permanent jobs.[2] Unit 2 is expected to be the first new nuclear reactor to come online in the USA in more than a decade.[3]
In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Watts Bar reactor cost to $4.5 bln, online '15
Reactor cost up from $2.5 billion estimate
Project was expected to start in 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405
Reactor cost up from $2.5 billion estimate
Project was expected to start in 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405
Bellefonte
TVA decided in August that it would complete the 1,260-MW Bellefonte 1 reactor. In the past, TVA said the project would cost about $4.9 billion and could enter service by 2020.
The company has said it would take about six years of construction time to finish Bellefonte 1, which was already about 55 percent complete.
But the ultimate cost and timing for Bellefonte depends on work at Watts Bar 2.
TVA started work on the Watts Bar and Bellefonte reactors in the 1970s but put both projects on hold in the next decade due
in part to a projected decrease in power demand.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405
The company has said it would take about six years of construction time to finish Bellefonte 1, which was already about 55 percent complete.
But the ultimate cost and timing for Bellefonte depends on work at Watts Bar 2.
TVA started work on the Watts Bar and Bellefonte reactors in the 1970s but put both projects on hold in the next decade due
in part to a projected decrease in power demand.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405
New construction with transparent accounting:
Olkiluoto
The first license application for the third reactor (EPR) was made in December 2000[10] and the original commissioning date of the third reactor was set to May 2009.[11] However, in May 2009 the plant was "at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget".[12][13][14] The commissioning deadline has been postponed several times and as of November 2011 operation is set to start in 2014.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Flamanville
First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant on December 6, 2007.[33] This will be the third unit on the site and the second EPR ever constructed. Electrical output will be 1630 MWe (net)[2] and the project involves around € 3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EdF.[34] The following is a condensed timeline for the unit:
From October 19, 2005 to February 18, 2006 the project was submitted to a national public debate.
On May 4, 2006 the decision was made by EDF's Board of Directors to continue with the construction.
Between June 15 and July 31, 2006 the unit underwent a public enquiry, which rendered a "favorable opinion" on the project.[35]
In Summer 2006 site preparation works began.
In December 2007 construction of the unit itself began. This is expected to last 54 months.
In May 2009 Professor Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months of construction and after a series of quality control problems, the project is "more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule".[27]
In 2010 EDF announced that costs had increased 50% to € 5 billion, and commissioning was delayed by about two years to 2014.[36]
In July 2011 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €6 billion and that completion of construction is delayed to 2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#Flamanville_3_.28EDF.27s_first_plant.29
From October 19, 2005 to February 18, 2006 the project was submitted to a national public debate.
On May 4, 2006 the decision was made by EDF's Board of Directors to continue with the construction.
Between June 15 and July 31, 2006 the unit underwent a public enquiry, which rendered a "favorable opinion" on the project.[35]
In Summer 2006 site preparation works began.
In December 2007 construction of the unit itself began. This is expected to last 54 months.
In May 2009 Professor Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months of construction and after a series of quality control problems, the project is "more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule".[27]
In 2010 EDF announced that costs had increased 50% to € 5 billion, and commissioning was delayed by about two years to 2014.[36]
In July 2011 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €6 billion and that completion of construction is delayed to 2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#Flamanville_3_.28EDF.27s_first_plant.29
Although he cheerfully confessed to driving a 'full-sized pickup' back on DU2.
Just having a truck is no reason to condemn someone without having all the facts.
I'm sure kris will let us know when he's ready.
No reason to get so defensive.
So I thought I would ask you about your setup.
'Cause getting a setup here would be tens of thousands of dollars.
Nuclear industry dreams dashed by current economic reality
It was the financing model and rates of return that prompted German nuclear giants RWC and E.ON to pull out of UK energy plans
Martin Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 April 2012 05.58 EDT
Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant was built just above sea-level, with cliffs bulldozed – a risky plan forced by economic necessity. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/apr/02/nuclear-dreams-economic-reality-blog
It was the financing model and rates of return that prompted German nuclear giants RWC and E.ON to pull out of UK energy plans
Martin Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 April 2012 05.58 EDT
Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant was built just above sea-level, with cliffs bulldozed – a risky plan forced by economic necessity. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters
The news that nuclear giants RWE and E.ON are dropping plans to build any new UK reactors has sent a toxic cloud not only over Wales, but over the nuclear industry itself.
Of course, everyone knows nowadays, post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima, that nuclear power plants are not really safe. Even if there are a few noisy die-hards, arguing that the resulting radiation is harmless, and that "hardly anyone" dies as a direct consequence of atomic meltdown, that old canard just won't wash any more.
Other nuclear myths, though, have lingered on. Atomic energy, unveiled by Her Majesty with grand aplomb at Calder Hall half a century ago, still has a hi-tech glamour, an aura of somehow being "the future". The reality that atomic plants are basically steam engines staffed by thousands of casual workers who would otherwise be picking strawberries or digging up roads somehow never impinges. Perhaps one of the most shocking images post-Fukushima, was of unskilled workers hosing sea water on to the smouldering wreckage. Not here the calm, fatherly figures in their white lab-coats in front of consoles worthy of the Starship Enterprise.
But there are solid, practical reasons why nuclear power relies on casual staff using dustpans and brushes to sweep up radioactive dust, or hoses to cool down spent fuel. Best of which is that it's cheaper. An enlightening fact about Fukushima, where the tsunami swept over the safety wall, was that at this point on the coast, the land is well above the level of any waves, tsunami or otherwise. It required considerable ingenuity to bulldoze the cliffs down to sea-level to construct a plant that was then potentially at risk. However, the plant operators knew that nuclear electricity is not actually "too cheap to meter", whatever Eisenhower may have said, and the additional cost of pumping seawater up to the top of the cliffs would have eaten into their bottom line. Hence, the small, if ever so slightly risky, strategy of situating the complex at sea-level.
So the torpedo that has just been launched at the majestic British nuclear ship ...
Of course, everyone knows nowadays, post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima, that nuclear power plants are not really safe. Even if there are a few noisy die-hards, arguing that the resulting radiation is harmless, and that "hardly anyone" dies as a direct consequence of atomic meltdown, that old canard just won't wash any more.
Other nuclear myths, though, have lingered on. Atomic energy, unveiled by Her Majesty with grand aplomb at Calder Hall half a century ago, still has a hi-tech glamour, an aura of somehow being "the future". The reality that atomic plants are basically steam engines staffed by thousands of casual workers who would otherwise be picking strawberries or digging up roads somehow never impinges. Perhaps one of the most shocking images post-Fukushima, was of unskilled workers hosing sea water on to the smouldering wreckage. Not here the calm, fatherly figures in their white lab-coats in front of consoles worthy of the Starship Enterprise.
But there are solid, practical reasons why nuclear power relies on casual staff using dustpans and brushes to sweep up radioactive dust, or hoses to cool down spent fuel. Best of which is that it's cheaper. An enlightening fact about Fukushima, where the tsunami swept over the safety wall, was that at this point on the coast, the land is well above the level of any waves, tsunami or otherwise. It required considerable ingenuity to bulldoze the cliffs down to sea-level to construct a plant that was then potentially at risk. However, the plant operators knew that nuclear electricity is not actually "too cheap to meter", whatever Eisenhower may have said, and the additional cost of pumping seawater up to the top of the cliffs would have eaten into their bottom line. Hence, the small, if ever so slightly risky, strategy of situating the complex at sea-level.
So the torpedo that has just been launched at the majestic British nuclear ship ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/apr/02/nuclear-dreams-economic-reality-blog
