Brice nuclear refit almost double projected costs

[kristopher]

The refit of two mothballed reactors at one of Bruce Power’s two nuclear plants near Kincardine is $2 billion over the original estimate, says one of the major partners in the project.

...And chief financial officer Alex Pourbaix said the final cost of the project is now likely to be $4.8 billion.

The original cost estimate when the project was announced in 2005 was $2.75 billion.

TransCanada says the plant won’t be restarted until the end of 2011, with commercial operation beginning in 2012. The original target for the restart was the end of 2009. The plant had been mothballed in 1997...

http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/article/885072--bruce-nuclear-refit-2-billion-over-budget


Officials say these delays and cost overruns will not cost consumers anything, but opposition politicians are skeptical; and since the contract to sell power is based on the actual costs of the vendor, so am I.

[GliderGuider]

1. Dallman Unit 4 was selected as the best coal-fired project of 2009

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/372671/articles/powergenworldwide/Business/project-management/2010/01/2009-projects-of-the-year.html

Best Coal-fired Project

Dallman Unit 4 is one of the cleanest subcritical pulverized coal units in the U.S. The 200 MW plant is owned by Springfield, Ill., municipal electric utility, City Water, Light & Power, which negotiated a landmark agreement with the Sierra Club that allowed the Dallman Unit 4 project to proceed without any litigation over its air permit. This itself is a significant achievement in the current fossil-fired project development environment.

The final result was a project completed seven months ahead of schedule and within budget.

A couple of points:

1. If budget and schedule are determining criteria, then coal wins!
2. The deal with the Sierra Club apparently saw the SC cave in and allow the plant to proceed unhindered in return for 120 MW of wind capacity. That's maybe 30 MW of actual production - 15% of the coal plant's capacity. Not a bad deal at all for Dallman.

[joshcryer]

2. So the lesson here is that where wind is built, likely coal is built?

[GliderGuider]

3. That's sure what it looks like...

Or maybe the coal industry has figured out how what kind of green to use when they buy out the environmentalists.

[kristopher]

4. You mean that is what *you* are *trying* to make it look like.

In point of fact you are attempting to spread more pronuclear/antirenewable falsehoods.

[GliderGuider]

5. Who, me?

I just posted a link to an article with a little, um, "focused" editing and an implied conclusion. Same as you did. Now you're gettin' all pissy on me?

[joshcryer]

10. Heaven forbid any renewable energy source be tied to coal.

...or natural gas. ;)

[bananas]

6. nope - 70% emissions reduction from the plant with money left over for consumer efficiency programs ...

plus wind so the total emissions reduction will be even greater than 70% because of negawatts and renwables.
And dry cooling to reduce thermal pollution to negligible levels.
The pro-nuke alternative is 100% emissions from the old coal plant for the next ten or twenty years then flip a coin, heads you have a shiny new reactor with billions of dollars of debt, tails you have an empty cooling tower with billions of dollars of debt (with the old coal plant still pumping out emissions at 100%).

[joshcryer]

9. It's still emitting massive amounts of CO2.

I know CO2 doesn't matter to dishonest nuclear peeps.

[kristopher]

11. Another attempt to malign renewable energy in favor of nuclear cost overruns?

The coal plant was going to open, and the fact is that the Sierra Club won significant concessions that will immediately help offset the emissions from the plant. The near doubling of time and money required for the nuclear project is a strong refutation of the nuclear industry claim you subscribe to that nuclear projects are NOT plagued by cost overruns and an inherent inability for nuclear projects to be accomplished routinely in a timely manner.

Nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

12. That's nice lipstick on that pig...

You say, "the Sierra Club won significant concessions".

They did??? In what universe? The plant went ahead, and the owners of the coal plant gave up nothing whatsoever. So who paid for the wind installation? Check this out:

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/?p=1218

A wind-power deal once expected to cost the city little to nothing has cost City Water, Light and Power customers more than $3 million in the last six months.

CWLP has spent nearly $6.4 million to buy wind energy from two wind farms in northern Iowa this fiscal year, but has recovered only about half of that expense, according to recent CWLP revenue figures.

CWLP customers are paying for the $3.2 million difference through a fuel adjustment charge assessed on their monthly utility bills.

The wind-power purchases are part of agreements Springfield aldermen approved in 2006 to avoid delays in building the city’s $500 million Dallman 4 power plant. The Sierra Club agreed to withdraw its challenge to the coal-fired plant after aldermen signed off on the deal.

Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards said this week that aldermen were assured the utility would break even on wind power. He said the city should consider getting out of the agreements and pursue sue the Sierra Club for damages.

Will Reynolds, chairman of the Sangamon Valley Group of the Illinois Sierra Club, said he doesn’t remember any claims that the wind power wouldn’t cost any money.

“Springfield has received national recognition for our commitment to clean energy, both the wind power and our energy-efficiency projects,” he said. … “Those are projects that save customer and the utility money once that investment is made.”

Buying wind energy was the most controversial part of the deal the city inked with the Sierra Club because of its unknown cost and the fact that the city can generate more than enough power from the new 200-megawatt plant.

The agreement called for the city to buy 120 megawatts of wind capacity — 60 megawatts for state government and 60 megawatts for itself. The utility also had to take other steps to conserve energy and reduce power plant emissions in exchange for the Sierra Club dropping its objections to construction of the coal-fired plant.

CWLP says it doesn’t sell the wind power on the open market. Instead, it uses the wind power to cover its native load — local demand for power– which in turn, frees up additional electricity produced by CWLP’s generating units to be sold.

But these days, energy-market prices are well below the price CWLP pays for wind power.

Currently, as part of its 10-year agreements, CWLP is buying the wind power for $46.60 per megawatt hour. But the extra energy the utility sells in its place on the wholesale market brings in only $22.85 a megawatt hour.

A one-year delay in the $500 million Dallman 4 project could have hiked construction costs by as much as $150 million, CWLP says. That would have required another rate increase, the utility says.
Ward 3 Ald. Frank Kunz said he doesn’t see a way out of the wind-purchase deal.

“We had signed on for 10 years to buy wind power. Period,” Kunz said. “At the end of 10 years, would I re-up it? No. This was all done to build the plant as quick as possible.”

“I believe in the long term, over the next 20, 30 years, it will turn around and it will be worth it,” Kunz said.

So the Sierra Club used the threat of legal delays to extort the ratepayers of Springfield into buying expensive power they didn't need, while the plant owners weren't inconvenienced one iota.

Some fucking "concession". In this instance the Sierra Club behaved like pirates.

[GliderGuider]

13. A correction in the interests of accuracy

The owners of Dallman 4 are the ratepayers of Springfield., and they have been inconvenienced plenty by Sierra Club's shenanigans. If SC had contented themselves with forcing Springfield to build the best possible environmental showcase a coal plant can be (which they apparently did anyway :shrug:) they could have retained the moral high ground. Instead they had to go the last ideological mile and ended up making common cause with Jack Sparrow.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

15. Self-delete

nt

[GliderGuider]

16. My conclusion had nothing to do with smearing wind.

I said that the Sierra Club held a loaded lawyer to the head of Springfield city council until the council caved in and contracted for wind power they didn't need or want, and in the process screwed over the ratepayers of Springfield. That's not an indictment of wind or support for nuclear power, it's an indictment of ideologically-motivated people who don't give a shit if ordinary people get hurt so long as their agenda is met.

I take it back, it wasn't piracy. SC ran a Green Mafia protection racket on Springfield.

[kristopher]

17. you make a bogus link associating wind with coal as a means of supporting nukes

But meanwhile -

The refit of two mothballed reactors at one of Bruce Power’s two nuclear plants near Kincardine is $2 billion over the original estimate, says one of the major partners in the project.

...And chief financial officer Alex Pourbaix said the final cost of the project is now likely to be $4.8 billion.

The original cost estimate when the project was announced in 2005 was $2.75 billion.

TransCanada says the plant won’t be restarted until the end of 2011, with commercial operation beginning in 2012. The original target for the restart was the end of 2009. The plant had been mothballed in 1997...

http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/article/885072--bruce-nuclear-refit-2-billion-over-budget


Officials say these delays and cost overruns will not cost consumers anything, but opposition politicians are skeptical; and since the contract to sell power is based on the actual costs of the vendor, so am I.

The Brice refit STILL is providing an example typical of the nuclear industry as it is experiencing cost overruns and slipped construction schedules that have nearly DOUBLED the cost and time to build.

Cost from $2.75B to $4.8B and they aren't finished yet.

Compared to the nuclear industry pirates are altruistic philanthropists.

[joshcryer]

19. This is basic capitalism here.

If you have some people pushing back against you, you compromise in some way that makes them look like the winner. Instead what we have is electrical generation that doesn't help the environment. The same thing is happening in Colorado. Emissions are going up as more wind is being built.

[joshcryer]

18. Coal plant was to open. People didn't want it, wind was proposed / accepted. Coal plant was opened..

How hard is this to grasp? The coal plant was opened. The grid got a bit of extra energy it didn't need.

[kristopher]

20. And the REFITTING price of the nuke plant was double the estimate and WAAAAY behind schedule

Both of which are economic reasons that nuclear sucks as a replacement. Per day and per dollar nuclear is more expensive than renewables, it therefore slows the response to climate change to spend money on nuclear instead of renewables.

[joshcryer]

21. Yes, nuclear sucks in our capitalist markets.

Wind ain't no solution if you give a shit about markets, either.

[kristopher]

22. Renewables *are* the market solution.

The policy support for renewables is having precisely the appropriate effect; it is driving private investment and reduced costs.

Nuclear, not so much...

Nuclear plant vendors are tripping over themselves trying to fleece the public; private investors are running away from it as fast as they can; and the costs are skyrocketing - all in spite of greater and greater subsidies and policy support.

Nuclear energy is a classic boondoggle.

[joshcryer]

23. Which is why their growth is slowing without subsidies.

Right. :rofl:

[kristopher]

25. Gleeful ignorance is such a peculiar thing to observe...

Nuclear can't go forward even with subsidies.

Learning curve for solar


Learning curve for nuclear

[joshcryer]

26. Stats from a company who hasn't even went into full scale production.

I remember the retarded shit that was being said about EEStor.

Oh well, at least 1366 Tech has raised some money. We'll see if they're full of shit pretty soon now.

edit: they claim solar at cost of coal by 2012. They have two years to fail miserably.

[kristopher]

27. The trend lines do not depend on any particular company - your thesis is WRONG.

Trying to make the contrast between the trend lines of nuclear and renewables about any one company is another example of just how terrible you are at understanding and using basic reasoning skills.

The price of electricity from renewable energy sources is declining across the board.

The price of nuclear is rising.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264062

[joshcryer]

29. Yeah? Got a source other than a company with unproven claims?

They *claim* to reduce costs to that of coal by 2012.

Their *claims* will be proven correct or not in a mere year and a few months.

[kristopher]

30. Post a source showing declining nuclear costs and rising solar costs.

You are full of more crap than a christmas turkey.

[kristopher]

31. Nothing showing declining nuclear cost trends or increasing renewable cost trends, eh?

I didn't think so.

[joshcryer]

33. I NEVER SAID THAT OR SUPPORTED THAT.

God what is your problem!

[joshcryer]

32. Where did I say *anywhere* that nuclear costs were declining?

What madness is this?

[kristopher]

35. Do you see the post I'm replying to? Your thesis is WRONG

Trying to make the contrast between the trend lines of nuclear and renewables about any one company is another example of just how terrible you are at understanding and using basic reasoning skills.

The price of electricity from renewable energy sources is declining across the board.

[joshcryer]

36. No such attempt exists, quote me "trying to make the contrast...

...between the trend lines of nuclear and renewables."

Your reasoning skills are either non-existent or you're intentionally being dishonest.

[kristopher]

37. First you tried to create a false equivalency...

Then you tried to dismiss the proof that the equivalency was false by using a "shoot the messenger" fallacy about the solar graph.

You are transparent and completely unable to make a cogent argument.

[joshcryer]

38. Wrong, I did no such thing. Had I it would be trivial for you to quote me doing as such.

The only time I mentioned nuclear in this entire thread was to point out how it sucks and won't solve our problems.

[kristopher]

39. Have you considered you are smoking waaaaaay too much pot?

264041, And the REFITTING price of the nuke plant was double the estimate and WAAAAY behind schedule
Posted by kristopher on Fri Nov-05-10 09:47 PM

Both of which are economic reasons that nuclear sucks as a replacement. Per day and per dollar nuclear is more expensive than renewables, it therefore slows the response to climate change to spend money on nuclear instead of renewables.


264048, Yes, nuclear sucks in our capitalist markets.
Posted by joshcryer on Fri Nov-05-10 10:08 PM

Wind ain't no solution if you give a shit about markets, either.



264050, Renewables *are* the market solution.
Posted by kristopher on Fri Nov-05-10 10:31 PM

The policy support for renewables is having precisely the appropriate effect; it is driving private investment and reduced costs.

Nuclear, not so much...

Nuclear plant vendors are tripping over themselves trying to fleece the public; private investors are running away from it as fast as they can; and the costs are skyrocketing - all in spite of greater and greater subsidies and policy support.

Nuclear energy is a classic boondoggle.




264051, Which is why their growth is slowing without subsidies.
Posted by joshcryer on Fri Nov-05-10 10:51 PM

Right. :rofl:



264061, Gleeful ignorance is such a peculiar thing to observe...
Posted by kristopher on Sat Nov-06-10 02:19 AM

Nuclear can't go forward even with subsidies.

Learning curve for solar
Image

Learning curve for nuclear
Image



264065, Stats from a company who hasn't even went into full scale production.
Posted by joshcryer on Sat Nov-06-10 03:40 AM

I remember the retarded shit that was being said about EEStor.

Oh well, at least 1366 Tech has raised some money. We'll see if they're full of shit pretty soon now.

edit: they claim solar at cost of coal by 2012. They have two years to fail miserably.




264083, The trend lines do not depend on any particular company - your thesis is WRONG.
Posted by kristopher on Sat Nov-06-10 11:25 AM

Trying to make the contrast between the trend lines of nuclear and renewables about any one company is another example of just how terrible you are at understanding and using basic reasoning skills.

The price of electricity from renewable energy sources is declining across the board.

The price of nuclear is rising.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264062

[joshcryer]

34. See the post I'm responding to? "Nuclear sucks in our capitalist markets."

What the fuck!

[bananas]

7. I recommend it and it stays at zero

somebody is trying to hide the facts.

[joshcryer]

8. It has a rec from me.

:shrug:

[madokie]

24. What a money hole nuclear power has turned out to be

for something that was going to change our daily lives its really turned into another dumb ass flying car :-) or beaming energy from outer space or any number of other out of this world schemes. Damn we're wasting all this time with GW when we really should have seen the lie that is nuclear energy a long time ago. Many of us did but some just won't ever figure it out. What a waste of good brain power.

rec'd to no avail

[kristopher]

28. It is amazing that anyone can argue for the technology because of its external costs alone

Given the proven effectiveness of the renwable alternative, costs aside just nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear wastes with nowhere to safely store it are alone more than enough reason for a rational person to shun nuclear power.

Add to that the bonus that renewables are less expensive and produce more carbon reduction per dollar and the support for nuclear becomes totally incomprehensible.