FL nuke plant 5 years late AND $5.3 billion (30%) more - in the still waiting for permit phase

[kristopher]

Nuclear power plant to cost more, startup delayed

6 May 2010-- Progress Energy Inc increased the estimated cost of its proposed 2,200 MW Levy nuclear power plant in Florida and delayed its start-up until 2021 due to a delay in licensing the reactors, uncertainty about federal and state energy policies and a recent credit rating downgrade of Progress Energy Florida.

The company estimates the project could cost up to $22.5 billion, up from its previous estimate of $17.2 billion. The first reactor is now expected to enter service in 2021 and the second, 18 months later. Progress originally estimated the first unit to enter service in 2016 but pushed that date back a year ago.

Progress also expects to receive its combined operating license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2012. The company expected to get the license in 2011 but received requests for additional information.

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/0954299218/articles/powergenworldwide/nuclear/reactors/2010/05/Progress-plant-delayed.html

[havocmom]

1. thanks for posting

[bananas]

2. Thanks - I posted the Reuters version in LBN

After reading your post, I looked and saw the Reuters version was 11 hours ago, within the time frame for LBN posts.
This confirms the independent cost estimates by Cooper and others.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4371739

[madokie]

3. If nuclear was such a good deal then why does it take so long?

If nuclear is so safe they why so many safeguards needed? How can they ever sell enough electrical power to ever recoup all that cost? My suspicions is we the people are going to be paying for most of it. Pursuing more nuclear energy is a waste of time and money. It robs both time and money from developing more benign forms of energy production from the forefront.

[Nihil]

4. Thanks ... I needed that!

> If nuclear is so safe they why so many safeguards needed?

:spray: :crazy:

[madokie]

5. You are welcome

I don't expect you to get it.

[Javaman]

7. Willful ignorance on their part. nt

[madokie]

8. Theres noone who is harder to train than those who already think they know how to do something

its been true all through my work life, Pretty much always a leadman/foreman so I have a lot of experience dealing with those who think they already know it all. I don't come here claiming I know anything except that we need to rethink our present policy on using nuclear energy and I arrived at this conclusion because of a lifetime of paying attention and reading, long before the push for nuke plants really began, back when the the nuclear people were somewhat telling us the truth, before they decided since they had no answers to a lot of questions being asked they made a decision to go rouge on us and start telling us lies about the whole process. After all why do the populace need to know just what the risks are, kind of thinking. We're going to ultimately have to deal with a big radiation incident before these 103 left standing nuke plants are shut down as they're all getting old and showing wear and tear and all things have a life expectancy. The waste we will always have to deal with even in the event that we destroy ourselves with the CO2, there will be people coming behind us and how can you convey the message to stay away from this stuff. Our gene pool has been tainted as it is now, we don't need to keep adding to that.
I see too many arguers for the sake of arguing sometimes. Sometimes to the point that the point of the op is totally lost.

[kristopher]

11. "How can they ever sell enough electrical power to ever recoup all that cost? "

They probably can't. According to market analysts 50-72% of new nuclear plants will be unable to sell enough electricity at a high enough price to payoff the capital investments required to build them. The only way this scenario doesn't play out is if nuclear power is guaranteed prices for their productive lifespan AND given massive government subsidies and (exactly like the oil industry) exemption from liability for the potential damage they might cause.

JUST FORCING THEM TO PURCHASE ADEQUATE LIABILITY INSURANCE WOULD TRIPLE THE COST OF THE ELECTRICITY THEY PRODUCE.

[madokie]

12. Yet someone else down thread was pissing down my leg telling me how they would

giving me figures to go with it too. :rofl: :hi:

[Statistical]

9. Logic fail.

If nuclear is so safe they why so many safeguards needed?

That is like saying is car fatalities are so low today why do we need safe cars. Maybe the safe cars lead to low fatalities?
The safeguards (notice the word safe in safeguards) is what makes nuclear energy safe

How can they ever sell enough electrical power to ever recoup all that cost?
Have you looked at how much a reactor can produce? Oh no you haven't because you state has a higher % of fossil fuels than China!

1.154 GW * 0.92 capacity factor * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year * 60 year lifespan = 558,000 Gwh.

That is 558 million MWh or 558 billion kWh. Whoesale electricity today in this country averages about 6 cents. So in todays dollars that is about $33.48 billion lifetime revenue for a single reactor. The price quoted in OP is for a pair of reactors = $67 billion.

Of course electrical prices will rise with inflation. So $67 billion isn't the lifetime revenue from a pair of reactors. 60 years of inflation is one hell of a multiplier. When all is said and done it is more like $150 - $200 billion.

Just like a fixed mortgage the capital cost of reactor doesn't rise with inflation thus providing a hedge against inflation for 6 decades. While O&M and fuel costs will rise with inflation they are the smallest portion of reactor's lifetime cost.




My suspicions is we the people are going to be paying for most of it. Pursuing more nuclear energy is a waste of time and money. It robs both time and money from developing more benign forms of energy production from the forefront.

[madokie]

10. Have fun

now go piss down someone else's leg for a while, I'm just now drying off from the last time. :hi:

[kristopher]

13. "Of course electrical prices will rise with inflation." - FALSE

The historic path of electricity prices is downward. In a business as usual scenario where we continue to rely of fossil fuels increasing scarcity would result in higher prices, however economies of scale associated with rapid renewable deployment and energy efficiency improvements predict a dismal future for nuclear power:

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

[Statistical]

15. Nothing in there indicates electricity prices won't rise with inflation.

Even solar power for example includes inflation in the ROI calculation for home solar installs. If electricity doesn't rise then ROI on home solar goes way down (and even negative).

Lastly the idea that alternative power will be immune to the effects of inflation.

Wages will rise thus the labor component of wind turbines for example will rise.
Commodity prices will rise thus the rare earth element, steel, aluminum in turbine will rise.
Even maintenance costs, repairs, and operation labor will rise.

The idea that alternative power is somehow immune to inflation isn't based in reality.

[kristopher]

16. Yes, there is.

The real price of electricity has declined steadily ever since we electrified the nation. It isn't a case of being "immune to inflation" but of a huge system that has the ability to capture a great deal of the value behind economies of scale and higher systemic efficiencies. That is specifically one of the advantages of moving to a distributed, smart grid. The increase in efficiencies is very, very large.

[Statistical]

17. We'lll check back in in 10, 20, and 30 years.

Let me know if you electric rate has gone down. :rofl:

[kristopher]

18. I almost didn't read your argument since your assumption was wrong, now that I have...

Accepting the numbers at face value, you've not accounted for 15% interest on 50% of the debt and 8% on the remainder.

Or maybe they are including market rates instead of subsidized rates to get to the real costs.

Note that your number also doesn't include these items that go into the final price:
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE W/O FUEL $0.01
PROPERTY TAXES $0.02
DECOMMISSIONING & WASTE COSTS RESERVE $0.02
FUEL CYCLE COSTS $0.03

So your $0.06 is more like $0.14 out the door, and that is IF interest is included in the OP number. Are you going to sell all 558TWh for that price for 60 years?

Really?

[Nederland]

6. They should cancel it

If General Electric can build reactors in Japan in under 4 years for 3-4 billions dollars, there is no reason they can't do it here too.

[Fledermaus]

14. Another nuclear money pit. n/t

[4dsc]

19. Taxpayer bailout for sure nt

[kristopher]

20. Kick