Georgia Seeks $2.5 Billion for First Nuclear Plants in 30 Years

[wtmusic]

"Georgia’s Municipal Electric Authority plans to borrow more than $2.5 billion this week to help finance its share of two nuclear reactors, which would be the first licensed in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island reactor accident in 1979.

The authority will borrow almost all of the money through the U.S. Treasury’s Build America Bond program, which subsidizes 35 percent of the interest cost on taxable securities sold for public purposes. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which received a letter last week from U.S. Senator Charles Grassley questioning fees earned from selling Build America Bonds, is the sole underwriter, according to offering documents.

The subsidies provided under the program are in addition to $8.33 billion of conditional loan guarantees that the federal government offers the owners of the proposed project, which includes Atlanta-based Southern Co., the second-largest U.S. utility owner. President Barack Obama announced the pledges on Feb. 16 along with a commitment to triple loan guarantees available to finance 'safe, clean nuclear facilities.' "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601015&sid=atGvkzuKcDzg

[Statistical]

1. The wheels of progress are slowly turning.

Still will be at least a year before they break ground but nice to them start to get ducks in a row.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html

They have obtained an ESP (Early Site Permit) so some initial work like laying concrete building access roads, ground leveling, fencing can be started but the reactor construction itself will need to wait until NRC issues a COL (which looks like it won't be until early 2011).

Curious to see what kind of interest rate they get on the bond.

[kristopher]

4. They're going to need a lot more than that...

Buyer beware of the lowball: An estimate of costs that is purposely estimated on the low side in order to lock in monitary commitment from the customer.

Let's look at Texas...
While the nuclear crowd are claiming a "new generation" of 'too cheap to meter power'; this is what is really going on...

Two years ago an independent analysts wrote this. The author and the paper were predictably attacked and dismissed with zero, repeat ZERO actual references to the paper.

Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG
Reactors at the South Texas Project Site

March 24, 2008
A. Main Findings and Recommendations

NRG, a merchant electricity generating company, proposes to build two new nuclear power reactors, totaling 2,700 megawatts at the South Texas Project site near Bay City, Texas. NRG owns a part of the two units that already exist at that site. CPS Energy, San Antonio’s electricity and gas municipal utility, which owns a 40 percent share of the two existing units proposes to purchase a 40 percent share of the proposed new reactors. This analysis is a preliminary report on the likely capital costs of the two reactors, as best they can be determined at the present time. It also contains some preliminary observations regarding efficiency and distributed renewable energy sources to put the CPS decision that might be made regarding investment in the NRG plant into context.

>Main findings
Careful industry analysis of new nuclear power plant costs indicates that the NRG estimate of $6 billion to $7 billion for the cost of the two new nuclear units proposed to be built at the South Texas Project site is obsolete and likely incomplete. The best currently available analyses indicate that it is a serious underestimate of the capital costs of the project.

An analysis of new nuclear power plant costs filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) with the Florida Public Service Commission is the most complete and rigorous analysis of new nuclear power plant capital costs publicly available to date. The FPL analysis is based on the same reactors, G.E. Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) as the proposed NRG project. Using this analysis, we find that the all-in total capital cost of the proposed NRG two-reactor project would be in the $12 billion to $17.5 billion range. This range is two to three times the lower NRG value of $6 billion and 1.7 to 2.5 times NRG’s higher estimate of $7 billion. Moody’s October 2007 estimates are within this range, as is the Progress Energy’s March 2008 estimate. Even these estimates do not take into account higher imported component cost risks created by a falling dollar or possible continued real cost escalation due to rising global demand for raw materials and skilled labor.

A 40 percent CPS’ share of the project would make its likely investment in the project in the $4.8 billion to $7 billion range. Even the lower end of this range is considerably higher than the total net value of CPS’s total electric plants of $3.9 billion as of the end of its 2007 fiscal year. The high end would make CPS’s share equal to the high end of the total NRG cost estimate.

As a municipal utility partnering with a merchant generator, the risks to CPS ratepayers and San Antonio taxpayers of a large, long-lead time, capital intensive project in a time of financial turbulence are considerable and need to be carefully evaluated. They should be publicly disclosed and discussed.

CPS completed its own study of the costs of the proposed project and compared it to some alternatives in 2007. This study has not been made public; it is being updated. CPS has made a commendable commitment to the concept that efficiency should be treated on a par with new investments in coal or nuclear plants. However, this commitment is only in the very initial stages of operationalization and is at very low levels of implementation relative to economic potential. The efficiency study of 2004 commissioned by CPS did not cover some technical elements and did not include combined heat and power or distributed renewable energy sources within its scope. It is also in urgent need of a financial update in light of increased costs of new coal and nuclear plants.


An early decision to invest in the nuclear units would pre-empt and possibly even foreclose full operationalization of the concept that efficiency, distributed generation, and distributed renewables should be treated on a par with central station investments. This could result in needless rate increases and financial risk. Additional financial risk may accrue due to NRG’s approach to the project. For instance, NRG filed an incomplete Combined Operating License Application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a fact that has could result in delays in the licensing process.

Download paper here:
http://www.ieer.org/reports/nuclearcosts.pdf

Where the project was in Oct 2009:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html

And today, Mar 2010
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/CPS_finalizes_nuclear_settlement.html







Lovins
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

Jacobson
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Severance
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Cooper Report:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

[joshcryer]

7. Well, we have a verifiable test. If you are right we will see.

[kristopher]

8. Dear taxpayer...

lowball: An estimate of costs that is purposely on the low side in order to lock in monetary commitment from the customer.

We've already seen; again and again and again...

http://www.ieer.org/reports/nuclearcosts.pdf

Where the project was in Oct 2009:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html

And today, Mar 2010
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/CPS_finalizes_nuclear_settlement.html

[NNadir]

2. This is good news given the vandalism against nuclear facilities in Vermont. This should save lives

that will be lost in Vermont by the COPD generating wastes from biomass and the dangerous fossil fuel industry.

[jpak]

3. LOL! Nucuclar is too cheap to meter - that's why it needs brazilions from taxpayers

IN ADDITION to the $8.33 billion....

TOO CHEAP TO METER!!!111

:rofl:

[Statistical]

5. If it was 1/10 the the output and "only" $1billion would that be better?

[joshcryer]

6. Nice.

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Of course it would.

What, you want a reason?


Nuke Shill !!11!

[kristopher]

9. The guy that said "too cheap to meter" was first head of Atomic Energy Commission

He was a financier and after the AEC was recommended to the post of Commerce Secretary.

Pronuclear folklore is that since the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in a speech to science writers, didn't directly say "atomic power will be" and said that "electricity will be" then the claims that he was talking about atomic power are lies. That's right, at the same time he is engaged in bringing COMMERCIAL nuclear power online, the First Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission gives a speech where he says that electricity will be too cheap to meter, and he is NOT talking about his basic theme - Atomic Energy.

Now *that's* entertainment.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. And "Green" energy is FREE!

FREE is WAY better then "To CHeap To Meter".

Not ONE DOLLAR ($) of Taxpayers Money goes too Wind Turben's or Solar Pannel's, but it doesn't half to. It's all FREE ENERGY! Spend that 8.33 billion $ on more Turbens and Pannel's, instead!

You don't even half to be good at Math too know that.

Take THAT, Mr. Payed Shill Corporate Nuke Lover!

:P

--d!
And then we half to get rid of that HARPP thing.