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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 06:56 PM Dec 2013

Builder of new nuclear plant quits reporting data after large early cost over-runs

Their motto should be "We don't tell you what it really costs until after you've bought it"

Builders of Vogtle Nuclear Plant Face Growing Costs, Concerns
08/21/2013
By Scott Judy

...The assessment came on the heels of Southern Co.'s request for a $737-million budget increase for the project. That request was later withdrawn as part of an agreement between the utility and PSC to review these costs upon the completion of the first new nuclear unit, now officially expected in the fourth quarter of 2017. If approved, the increase could be paid mostly by ratepayers.

...William Jacobs and Steven Roetger (project monitors - k) testified that Southern's most recent target, 2017's fourth quarter, for completing Vogtle 3 is "more reasonable" than its previous 2016 date, but added, "at this time, we are not able to conclude that the schedule is reasonable and achievable."

...The monitors testified, "To date, the consortium has not demonstrated the ability to fabricate high-quality CA20 sub-modules at its Lake Charles, La., facility that meet the design requirements at a rate necessary to support the project schedule." They added that Southern is prohibiting shipment of sub-modules from Lake Charles to the Vogtle site and that "several" of the already delivered sub-modules will require rework at the site.

Overall, the monitors say the fabrication and assembly of building modules is "significantly behind schedule," with the target to set the CA20 module on the nuclear-island foundation having slipped 21 months to date, to this November....

http://southeast.construction.com/southeast_construction_projects/2013/0821-Builders-of-Vogtle-Nuclear-Plant-Face-Growing-Costs-Concerns.asp

About the source:
ENR Southeast provides local, in-depth and comprehensive coverage on heavy, highway, building and industrial construction news in the four-state area of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. In every printed issue and every day on our website, we provide news, features and information about people and projects.


This is an excellent discussion of the flagship project meant to launch a new nuclear industry in the US. As a result of the Cheney energy bill from 2005, it isn't possible for the project to be delayed by public, judicial or legislative action - and in the event ANY shutdown is forced on the builders, there is a $500,000,000 federal fund set aside to reimburse them.

Highly recommended reading.


8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Builder of new nuclear plant quits reporting data after large early cost over-runs (Original Post) kristopher Dec 2013 OP
You have got to be kidding me! justhanginon Dec 2013 #1
No, not kidding. kristopher Dec 2013 #4
There are times when Turbineguy Dec 2013 #2
Help me out... kristopher Dec 2013 #5
Something like that. Turbineguy Dec 2013 #6
"But that doesn't always seem to be the case." kristopher Dec 2013 #7
This is really from The Onion, right? n/t lordsummerisle Dec 2013 #3
Pretty sad... kristopher Dec 2013 #8

justhanginon

(3,287 posts)
1. You have got to be kidding me!
Sat Dec 14, 2013, 07:41 PM
Dec 2013

"As a result of the Cheney energy bill from 2005, it isn't possible for the project to be delayed by public, judicial or legislative action - and in the event ANY shutdown is forced on the builders, there is a $500,000,000 federal fund set aside to reimburse them."

It's kind of like the fabled perpetual motion machine, it can just go on and on and and on and .........

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
4. No, not kidding.
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 12:29 PM
Dec 2013

Cheney's 2005 Energy Act insulated nuclear projects very effectively. Once a license is issued, just about the only avenue that could affect the plant would be if the buyer pulled the plug on the project.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. Help me out...
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 07:37 PM
Dec 2013

When you write "the North Korean solution" what are you referring to? Is there an uncle involved?

Turbineguy

(37,206 posts)
6. Something like that.
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 07:48 PM
Dec 2013

It always seemed to me that given the nature of the nuclear industry that it should attract the brightest and most ethical people. People who are serious about their responsibilities. People who make good decisions. But that doesn't always seem to be the case.

It's not so much the physics, it's the people who are involved.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. "But that doesn't always seem to be the case."
Mon Dec 16, 2013, 11:20 PM
Dec 2013

I've always had trouble with those who think it should be the case. I mean, the thought originates in a lack of recognition that there is always a distinction between science and economics.
Few people would fail to recognize that the economic motivations involved in providing petroleum are a corrupting influence on many areas of science, or that 'science' was used to cloak the damage done by the tobacco industry. And this is even as no-scare-quote-science was damning both industries for their failings.

I always value your (far too few) contributions here so maybe you could help me see what I'm missing on this topic.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. Pretty sad...
Tue Dec 17, 2013, 08:26 AM
Dec 2013

But I don't expect much more from our Southern Legislatures anymore. Almost everything they do has an aura of unreality to it.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Builder of new nuclear pl...