I'd be ROFL at the predictability if ...

[kristopher]

... it didn't represent a diversion of critical resources at a time when we can least afford to go down this path yet again.

Watts Bar reactor construction time and costs nearly double. Who could have guessed?

TVA ups 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
* Bellefonte's new reactor likely also to be delayed

By Scott DiSavino Apr 5, 2012 1:18pm EDT


April 5 (Reuters) - U.S. government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said on Thursday it now sees the new reactor at the Watts Bar 2 nuclear power plant in Tennessee online between September and December 2015 at a higher estimated cost of $4 billion to $4.5 billion.

...

TVA decided in 2007 to complete the second reactor at Watts Bar to help meet the region's growing demand for power. The unit was expected to enter service in 2012 at a cost of about $2.5 billion.

"Our estimates on time and cost were wrong," Kilgore said. "While our intentions were well founded, our execution and progress reviews were not."

And no matter what it eventually costs you can count on the following sentiment being expressed by those responsible:
"Watts Bar Unit 2 remains a cost-effective solution for meeting the region's base load power needs with clean energy at a competitive rate." - Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO


It is called "bait and switch" or "price bating" and it is standard practice in the nuclear industry.

[Kolesar]

1. Watts, uh, what's a ...

What's another billion to those guys? Send the bill to somebody else and tell them it's their fault.

[bbinacan]

2. Sounds kinda like

a solar company, doesn't it.

[kristopher]

3. Not at all.

Solar projects do not suffer from the type of cost overruns and slipped construction schedules that characterizes virtually every nuclear power plant ever built. Solar plants, even large ones, are generally planned and online in less than 2 years; for purposes of comparison the current delay for completing this nuclear plant is 3 years.

You aren't very familiar with the energy industry, are you?

[XemaSab]

4. I worked on a solar project six years ago

that's still not built.

Furthermore, my colleagues at the time were working on at least three more that are still not built.

[madokie]

6. Would you point me in that direction

I'd like to read about this for myself.

[joshcryer]

34. Solar projects are smaller so there will be plenty of cancelled solar projects.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cancelled+solar+projects

[Dead_Parrot]

5. You've got a cite for that, I assume.

Or is it an ass-pull?

[kristopher]

7. How long do *you* think it takes?

In 2010 solar installations were 22% higher than in 2009.

In 2011 solar installations were double what they were in 2009.

Do you think they began planning those 2011 projects in 2008?

[Dead_Parrot]

8. So, no.

There's a shocker.

[kristopher]

9. So you think those who bought solar because of the price declines in 2011...

...knew three years in advance that China was going to throw a shitton of money at solar in 2010 and 2011?

If they are that well armed with foresight we'd better follow their lead on how they invested their money.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. You seem confused, kris.

I'm after something like "No, actually I can't back that up", or something like "Sure, look at http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/ and see how long it takes".

NB: since http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/ is full of stuff from the last decade, it doesn't help your case.

[kristopher]

11. Show forecasts from 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 that predicts 2010 & 2011 actual performance.

It is obvious that the rush of projects in 2010 and 2011 were a result of price declines that commenced in 2009.

For your claims to be true then we must believe that the project developers were planning for the record breaking installations in 2010 and 2011 before those 2009 price declines commenced. No one had forecast anything close to that rate of growth for 2010/2011 in 2008 or earlier.

Show forecasts from 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008 that predicts 2010 & 2011 actual performance. If you want to make your point you'll need to explain the current growth pattern - something your website completely fails to do.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Check back through the thread kris - I didn't make any claims, You did.

It's hilarious watching you trying to avoid admitting you can't back them up.

[kristopher]

13. Sure you did. BTW, did you hear about Watts Bar?

You refer to the california website as a source that you think shows I'm not correct. However, contrary to your claim, I DID support my assertion. If you disagree then show some evidence that explains how that surge in 2010 and 2011 was planned back before 2008.

BTW:Watts Bar reactor construction time and costs nearly double. Who could have guessed?

TVA ups 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
* Bellefonte's new reactor likely also to be delayed

By Scott DiSavino Apr 5, 2012 1:18pm EDT


April 5 (Reuters) - U.S. government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said on Thursday it now sees the new reactor at the Watts Bar 2 nuclear power plant in Tennessee online between September and December 2015 at a higher estimated cost of $4 billion to $4.5 billion.

...

TVA decided in 2007 to complete the second reactor at Watts Bar to help meet the region's growing demand for power. The unit was expected to enter service in 2012 at a cost of about $2.5 billion.

"Our estimates on time and cost were wrong," Kilgore said. "While our intentions were well founded, our execution and progress reviews were not."

And no matter what it eventually costs you can count on the following sentiment being expressed by those responsible:
"Watts Bar Unit 2 remains a cost-effective solution for meeting the region's base load power needs with clean energy at a competitive rate." - Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO


It is called "bait and switch" or "price baiting" and it is standard practice in the nuclear industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. No kris, that's just you having mystical visions or something.

I said it didn't help your claims. Personally, I don't think it's a broad enough sample which is why I didn't claim anything. Go read my post again.

And yes, I saw the OP. There's no need to copy and paste it. Here's a link, btw - you forgot it in the OP: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/utiliites-tva-wattsbar-idUSL2E8F548S20120405

[kristopher]

15. Poor little feller can't even own his own positions.

Trying to hide behind your passive-aggressive style of argumentation is a transparent ploy. You've been reduced to incoherent sniping, DP.

BTW, Watts Bar nuclear reactor construction time and costs have nearly doubled (and we aren't even close to being at the end point...

Who could have guessed?

[Dead_Parrot]

16. lol

So perhaps you'd like to repeat my claim back, so we can all enjoy it?

[kristopher]

17. More passive-aggressive sniveling?

You asked for the basis of my claim, and I gave it to you. You didn't address the substance of the answer - which is pretty much irrefutable - and instead simply reject and insist that the only way to support my statement is by appealing to some exterior authority. That is bullpuckey and you know it. With your unfounded denial, you are, by implication, establishing Your position as one that is in opposition to what I asserted.

You can't support your contrary position nor can you find a legitimate basis for refuting the argument I gave in support of my own, so we are forced to endure yet another round of your incoherent sniping where, in your delusion, you think you are demonstrating cleverness and wit.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. I asked you for a cite, kris.

Anybody bored enough to read this far can draw their own conclusions as to how it panned out.

[kristopher]

19. Like I said...

explain this any other way than <2 years for planning & deployment.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. I'm not sure what you think this claims, kris

There's only two large projects mentioned there: Blythe Solar (Started 2009, currently bankrupt), and Sempra's Mesquite (Started 2010, expected to finish 2013)

Neither of these is <2 years.

Edit to add: lest you forget, your claim was Solar plants, even large ones, are generally planned and online in less than 2 years.

[kristopher]

21. ROFLMAO

What would you consider the hundreds of commercial and utility scale solar projects that were part of the growth portion at the top of the graphic?
ETA: just found the stat for total of commercial and utility scale solar for 2011:
Commercial 800MW
Utility 758MW
Residential 297MW

Utility-scale solar photovoltaics installs quadrupled in US
July 5, 2011

- Strong consumer demand and federal and local financial incentives are propelling growth in the U.S. solar market, according to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council's Solar Market Trends report for 2010.

...Overall, installed capacity in 2010 was "double what it was in 2009," said Larry Sherwood, chief author of the annual report. The biggest growth sector was photovoltaic utilities, with quadrupled installed capacity, based largely on state-level renewable energy goals, said Sherwood. Residential and commercial solar PV installs grew by more than 60%, fueled by state and federal incentives.

Sherwood adds that more than 124,000 new solar heating, cooling and solar electric installations took place in 2010, with very uneven distribution across various states. California is still the largest US solar market (28% of installed capacity completed in 2010 was installed there), but Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas made huge strides, at least doubling their installed photovoltaic capacity since 2009....

Pointing to the demise of a couple of concentrated solar thermal plants when the discussion is about PV is just like you DP. Nowhere upthread is CSP mentioned, while there are repeated references to the manufacturing and market for PV. You were invited to say your piece but you didn't mention CSP because you knew it wasn't what I was referring to. And in point of fact the reason these projects were abandoned isn't because solar PV takes so long (it doesn't) but because the declining costs of solar is driving the move to more distributed generation and changing the economics of CSP with storage projects.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/the-changing-tech-of-utility-scale-solar-projects/9494


Admit it, my position is solid.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. All I'm doing is asking for the project timescales, kris

And I see they are not forthcoming.

If you want to make the discussion about PV I'm cool with that, but you should probably a) stop using vague words like solar, as PV was only mentioned in your last post, and b) be aware that Blythe Solar switched to PV last year so it doesn't really make any difference.

So, not quite solid, but certainly very dense.

[kristopher]

23. There you go again, denying the obvious...

You aren't "asking for project timelines", you are accusing me of making false claims. I documented the evidence and the reasoning that is clearly indicated by that evidence and You have YET to address it. Instead you persist in this passive-aggresive harassment.

I'm aware Blythe considered converting to PV but that was a hail mary pass, the total package of project economics were developed based on thermal with storage. Simply switching to PV doesn't do anything to all of the other variables that were geared to the original technology.

Look at what is happening with Watts Bar - just trying to revive a mothballed nuclear plant (that was what, 80% complete) and the integration with just updated technologies has caused a(n initial) three year delay and a doubling of the cost estimate.

Address the evidence that was presented or stop acting as if you are doing anything more than harassing me.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. You haven't presented any evidence, kris

Saying n-MW was completed in year in year x does not give us any information on how long it took, only when it was finished. Of the two actual large projects you've brought up, one should be about 3 years and one doesn't count.

So, do you have any evidence that most large solar (limited to PV if you like) projects take < 2 years?

[kristopher]

25. Posts 7, 9, 11

It isn't complicated. The price decline was not predictable, and started in 2009. It led to huge growth in installations during 2010 and 2011, 80% of which were large projects.

There is no basis to claim that this surge was planned prior to when the price decline began in 2009. The major uptick that characterized 2011 is coincidental with a major influx of cash into manufacturing by China that year which drove the price down even more rapidly.

Unless you can present evidence to the contrary the obvious conclusion from this evidence is that the bulk of these projects were planned and executed within a 2 year window.

Of course, you already know all of that and you know that I've already pointed to it. Now treat us to your next nonsensical response where the wit of a 12 y/o is showcased.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. That sounds more like straw-clutching to me

If we look at past installations over a longer term -



It's a pretty steady curve, and the forecast follows it:



Your claim that 2009 saw a magic breakpoint isn't reflected anywhere here: "The major uptick that characterized 2011" is no more major than the one in 2010 or 2009, or the one we'll see in 2012 or 2013.

Your argument seems to consist of: "The price fell in 2009, and there was a lot of pv in 2011, so the two must be connected, so the project time is <2 years". Which is about par for the course, sadly.

So, to answer my own question: No, you haven't got any sort of citation.

[XemaSab]

36. You can always hit the alert button.

n/t

[SpoonFed]

38. Really?

I see you provided an unsupporting citation yourself... that's a bit different than your assertion.

[SpoonFed]

37. Hilarious...

since http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/ is full of stuff from the last decade, it doesn't help your case.

Hey Kristopher, the cite I made that you did not, does not support your case?!?!
It would seem that kristopher's stuff-words-in-a-dead-parrots-mouth-machine isn't functioning?!?

[bbinacan]

33. I work in the real energy industry

Which would be natural gas. You may build something fast like a solar facility, but they don't produce squat for power on a cost/megawatt basis.

[kristopher]

27. DP, you're still seeking to obfuscate rather than enlighten

Note the flat line for module pricing between 2003 thru 2008. And if you were to dig deeper you'd find that module prices only dropped 23% for the 10 year period from $4.75/W in 1998 to $3.65 in 2008 .



The 2008 global market was 5.85GW, while the last quarter of 2011 saw nearly *double* that reaching more than 10GW of installations - with a total for the year of around 27GW.

And you are saying most or all of that was planned before the global energy shakeup that occurred as a result of the economic collapse and Fukushima?

Nuclear isn't doing very well, and your sour grapes approach to "analysis" regarding the competition for nuclear is pretty obvious. What are you going to do when we are installing hundreds of GW of solar and wind each year? You'd better start preparing yourself mentally for that because judging by your actions here to date you are headed for some rough emotional seas.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. No kris, I'm asking you to provide a citation...

And drawing much amusement from your assorted ad hominems and deflections.

[kristopher]

29. I've demonstrated that you are not correct.

You claimed there was no price fluctuation to account for, I showed that there was. Now please tell me you have something more to explain the data with than denial and non-applicable charts from the EIA.

I mean seriously, show me one source that was "ho-hum we saw that coming" about 10GW of solar in Q4 2011. Or one source that was "ho-hum we saw that coming" about Germany installing 2.1GW of solar just in the month of December 2011.

If these projects are planned as far in advance as you claim, there would be far greater predictability by market analysts than exists.

Please, now, treat us to more of your 12-y/o-fingers-in-your-ears type of argumentation.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. You really haven't

I didn't claim anything about price - Go back and look.

I have claimed that the growth in PV has been fairly consistent, and also that you can't provide a cite.
One of these you haven't addressed, the other you've pretty much demonstrated is true.

[kristopher]

31. Yes, I really have...

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Well, I'm glad you think so.