http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUDOlFcTkfXanbluyrt31dwzaqmA

Quote :

"Obama to announce financing for two nuclear reactors WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce on Tuesday plans for the government to help finance the construction of two nuclear reactors -- the first in nearly 30 years, a top US official said. Obama, who has advocated reducing foreign energy dependency and cutting back on greenhouse gases, will use a 2005 law that authorizes the Energy Department to guarantee loans to projects that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obama "has long believed that nuclear power should be part of our energy mix," a senior administration told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. The 18.5 billion dollars in existing loan guarantee authority will be used to help finance the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a Southern Company plant in Burke, Georgia. There have been no new nuclear power plants built in the United States since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the eastern state of Pennsylvania. Currently only 20 percent of the country's energy needs are met by nuclear power. The operation will result in some 3,000 construction jobs, and eventually some 850 permanent jobs, the official said, citing company figures. According to the official, Obama's 2011 budget "triples loan guarantees for nuclear-power plants to more than 54 billion dollars.""

Isn't the president concerned that more nuclear power could make us, you know, look kind of French?

2/16/2010 1:10:15 PM

good.

2/16/2010 1:12:33 PM

good

2/16/2010 1:21:38 PM

END THA SUBSIDIES!!!!

2/16/2010 1:30:22 PM

Strangely Achmadenijad had nothing to say about the matter and was neither jealous nor interested.

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 1:32 PM. Reason : 0]

2/16/2010 1:32:34 PM

What he needs to do is tell Harry Reid to fuck himself and open Yucca Mountain Repository. This would bring jobs to Nevada and more security to the nuclear power industry.

2/16/2010 1:57:16 PM

Government funded nuclear reactors? Is comrade Obama trying to nationalize our power now

2/16/2010 2:04:38 PM

Excellent. This is definitely the right way forward. I just wish they'd build one in my backyard.

2/16/2010 2:07:48 PM

Not exactly our backyard, but it looks like it is in a rural part of Georgia that is about 200 miles (based on google maps driving directions) from Atlanta, GA, Charlotte, NC, and Jacksonville, FL.

2/16/2010 2:15:30 PM

I live in Maine :-P

2/16/2010 2:15:47 PM

I hope this expands nuclear research here in the US and we start building more modern plants.

A combination of wind/solar/geothermal produced by individuals/businesses for their own consumption + local/national nuclear power generation should be our energy generation goal.

2/16/2010 2:20:40 PM

With the CDC and now nuclear technology, we have entrusted Georgia of all states with the ability to create both Zombies and Godzillas. Not to mention they control CNN. God help us all.

2/16/2010 2:21:20 PM

small step in the right direction, but at least its in the right direction. I just hope these actually get built though.

2/16/2010 2:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Government funded nuclear reactors? Is comrade Obama trying to nationalize our power now "

Low interest government funding is almost essential. The cost to build a new nuclear plant is about 25 billion. The cost to build a coal or NG plant is about 4 billion. 25 billion is more than a lot of power companies are worth, and would essentially double their capitalization overnight. That is hard for investors to swallow.

The government has also changed their regulatory licensing requirments. It USED to be that you got a permit to build the plant, then after it was built, you got a permit to run it. The problem with that is that there was no promise by the NRC that your permit to run would be approved, even though they approved its initial production, or that they wouldnt require you to change a lot of stuff 8 years into the construction process that costs billions more before you could turn it on.

That has been changed. You now get approval to build and run from the beginning, lessening the worries that you'll have invested billions for nothing.

2/16/2010 2:40:10 PM

It's going to take a lot of research to make nuclear power viable in the long term, considering how little nuclear fuel is available using current techniques. It's not yet a renewable resource.

2/16/2010 3:11:26 PM

^One easy way would be to allow reprocessing. That would use "spent" fuel and lessen the demand on uranium supplies and waste storage. Also one of the reasons that there has been little new uranium found is that thanks to lessening in demand for nuclear weapons, and little growth in nuclear power production, they have not spent much money on exploration.

In addition, cost of uranium is a very small part of the cost of operating a nuclear power plant. Unlike other power sources, like oil and coal, where small price fluctuations in the fuel can make a big difference in the bottom line, uranium prices can rise or fall dramatically without having much impact on the cost to generate electricity. Most of that goes to construction, maintenance, etc.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 3:18 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2010 3:18:30 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Quote :

"Southern Co.'s application for a license to build and operate the reactors is pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one of 13 such applications the agency is considering. The earliest any could be approved would be late 2011 or early 2012, an NRC spokesman said. Southern Co. says the Georgia project would create about 3,000 construction jobs, while the new reactors would generate power for about 1.4 million people and permanently employ 850 people. "

Quote :

"Having Obama make the announcement also underscores the political weight the White House is putting behind the effort to use nuclear power and other alternative energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels, and create jobs at home."

2 reactors out of one application, with the president taking the lead, and other applications being considered, I think that these will probably only be the first few reactors of several more to come.

Quote :

"Even in promoting his case, the president conceded that nuclear energy has "serious drawbacks." He said a bipartisan group of leaders and nuclear experts will be tasked with improving and accelerating the safe storage of nuclear waste, and that the plants themselves must be held to strictest safety standards. "That's going to be an imperative. But investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step," Obama said. "And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics," he added. "

2/16/2010 3:24:24 PM

I know for a fact Dominion power has plans of adding another reactor by 2017 at its Santa Anna facility. I also believe their nuclear core has already been manufactured and delivered to them by Japanese Steel Works.

2/16/2010 3:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Low interest government funding is almost essential. The cost to build a new nuclear plant is about 25 billion. The cost to build a coal or NG plant is about 4 billion. 25 billion is more than a lot of power companies are worth, and would essentially double their capitalization overnight. That is hard for investors to swallow."

That is what the stock market is for. If we could remove the politics from the industry such that permits were issued on merit instead of political posturing, then subsidies would be unnecessary. No, fuck that, subsidies are unnecessary as it is. Just have the friggin' DOE start issuing permits to build and run reactors. If none are built because they cannot manage the financing, so be it.

2/16/2010 3:41:28 PM

^so you think that the NRC should still regulate nuclear power plants?








frankly im suprised

2/16/2010 3:52:01 PM

I dont see how subsidies are unnecessary. If a power company needs to build a new power plant then they are obviously going to go for the cheapest solution which is coal.

2/16/2010 3:55:50 PM

Lone, unfortunately the 'free market' argument isnt going to work here when there are more than dollars and cents at play. They can't build many coal plants because of worries about future carbon taxes and dealing with the protestors. They can't build wind in any large scale because it is still too expensive and there is no way to capture the energy when it isnt used. Natural gas is great, but as we have seen, it is subject to huge swings in pricing which make it bad for the consumer to be solely supported through NG plants. That leaves nuclear, which while inexpensive to operate and solves the carbon issue, is really expensive to build.

Government regulation has essentially boxed them in, and with the liabilities associated with running a nuclear plant, it is going to be hard to get backing to cover the investment.

Since the government is not going to remove much regulation, we are faced with dealing with reality as it exists. Government loans are ESSENTIAL to nuclear coming back online. This is one issue I absolutely agree the government needs to get involved with, because the free market won't be sufficient in dealing with what I see as a huge need.

2/16/2010 4:34:25 PM

^^ Then levy taxes on pollution. Maybe they will just opt to pay the taxes, maybe they won't. Whichever way, we win.

^^^ We must regulate the nuclear the industry because we provide them with free liability insurance. That's right: a reactor could melt down and render New Jersey (more) uninhabitable, the owner of the reactor would not have to pay a penny in damages to anyone that was not an employee. As such, if Congress is going to relieve owners of any incentive to avoid harm, it damn well better engage some oversight. That said, I strongly suspect safer and more cost effective oversight would come from private insurers, so the best solution would be to revoke their liability protection.

There is plenty of evidence that no insurer would ever insure a nuclear power plant, they certainly refused to do so in the beginning, rendering it infeasible to build any nuclear plants, which is the reason Congress passed the law.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ^]

2/16/2010 4:38:17 PM

Lone, I admittedly missed the purpose of your post, so my rant wasnt really a good response.

2/16/2010 4:44:49 PM

^^^ You can argue that someone needs oversight. You can argue that someone needs liability protections. But you cannot argue that someone needs subsidies. If they don't get the subsidies then either 1) prices will rise to make it profitable without subsidy, or 2) society will learn to get along without their activity. It is not obvious to me that either of these outcomes is bad in any way.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ^]

2/16/2010 4:45:12 PM

Obama has this right.


I do have a question...what are the major differences between the reactors used to power Naval ships and the traditional ground based ones? (other than size, obviously)

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 4:55 PM. Reason : u]

2/16/2010 4:53:28 PM

Quote :

"It's going to take a lot of research to make nuclear power viable in the long term, considering how little nuclear fuel is available using current techniques. It's not yet a renewable resource."

Right that it's not yet a renewable resource (the possibility for it to be one is a matter of semantics). Wrong that sustainable nuclear needs research. Many of the more sustainable designs from a fuel cycle perspective (fast reactors, LFTRs) were known and demonstrated before the current type of reactor and fuel cycle took hold. Nuclear power needs commercialization of these designs to become sustainable.

Quote :

"Low interest government funding is almost essential. The cost to build a new nuclear plant is about 25 billion. The cost to build a coal or NG plant is about 4 billion. 25 billion is more than a lot of power companies are worth, and would essentially double their capitalization overnight. That is hard for investors to swallow."

Well I'll be darned, looks like no new nuclear plants will be built. Because they're not getting low interest government funding. They've only been granted loan guarantees. Looks like we fall short (by a long shot) and it's a no go.

and 25 billion? Really? You're not used to dealing with large numbers are you? The South Texas Project said it would walk away from their deal at 16B $USD for TWO reactors.

Quote :

"Natural gas is great, but as we have seen, it is subject to huge swings in pricing which make it bad for the consumer to be solely supported through NG plants. That leaves nuclear, which while inexpensive to operate and solves the carbon issue, is really expensive to build."

NG is low capital - high fuel costs. And NG constitutes like 95% of new capacity through the last 10 years. We will reach the limits of expansion of NG soon, and the capacity needs to be made up by something.

Quote :

"^^^ We must regulate the nuclear the industry because we provide them with free liability insurance. That's right: a reactor could melt down and render New Jersey (more) uninhabitable, the owner of the reactor would not have to pay a penny in damages to anyone that was not an employee. As such, if Congress is going to relieve owners of any incentive to avoid harm, it damn well better engage some oversight. That said, I strongly suspect safer and more cost effective oversight would come from private insurers, so the best solution would be to revoke their liability protection."

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

we provide them with free liability insurance
It's not free.

owner of the reactor would not have to pay a penny in damages to anyone that was not an employee
You're completely wrong. Not only do they have to pay damages if their own reactor melted down, but they also must pay if ANY reactor melts down. That's the point.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2010 6:00:19 PM

"Well I'll be darned, looks like no new nuclear plants will be built. Because they're not getting low interest government funding. They've only been granted loan guarantees. Looks like we fall short (by a long shot) and it's a no go."

You are arguing semantics. If the lenders know the government is backing the loans, the end result will be a low interest rate because there is little risk. It is essentially government loans via a middleman. The government only has to come up with money in the event of default. Its an easy way of not increasing our deficit on the balance sheet, but it is very much a government loan.

"and 25 billion? Really? You're not used to dealing with large numbers are you? The South Texas Project said it would walk away from their deal at 16B $USD for TWO reactors."

I dont know about the project you are talking about, but I assume this is regarding expansion, NOT a new plant. My comments regarding costs were directly related to new plant creation. My figures come directly from dominion power in their own studies. New reactors are only a start. There will need to be new plants built. They are cost prohibitive. And compared to enlarging a coal plant/NG/etc even new reactors really expensive (much more expensive than simply opening a new NG/Coal plant).

"NG is low capital - high fuel costs. And NG constitutes like 95% of new capacity through the last 10 years. We will reach the limits of expansion of NG soon, and the capacity needs to be made up by something."
Ok, so you just decided to repeat exactly what I said and embelish. Was this your desire? The only thing you are reaching on is NG expansion. I only need to call your attention to NG production demise prognostications just a few short years ago. There is plenty of NG to be had. My issue is that I dont want one single non-rewable power source to be our baseload energy source. It needs to be split evenly between NG/Coal/Nuclear so no single market can skyrocket energy pricing.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2010 6:41:23 PM

Quote :

"There is plenty of evidence that no insurer would ever insure a nuclear power plant"

To add to mrfrog's response:

http://www.nmlneil.com/members/default.aspx

----

Quote :

"I do have a question...what are the major differences between the reactors used to power Naval ships and the traditional ground based ones? (other than size, obviously)"

For PWRs, not much. Most of the differences are related to the fact one is alone in the ocean and the other is operated near populations. The basic designs are the same.

BWRs are another thing, obviously.

2/16/2010 8:08:26 PM

didnt realize there were two threads. posted this in the other thread:

I am working on one of the other plants eyeing that money. My project was the front runner for the money for a long time until some internal problems between the two investors have caused some setbacks. Still look pretty solid to be in the top 2-3 which is what you need to be to get a slice of the loan guarantee.

also, these plants have been under engineering design and even procurement for a few years. All the news is about today is that they got funding and that the design will actually be finished and constructed.

The project I am working on is the South Texas 3&4 reactors.

2/16/2010 8:35:28 PM

A solution to make nuclear more attractive to the greenies might be thorium. I read an article that said they could use that and draw the power the same uranium. There were studies done when nuclear tech was just coming around and the govt pushed for uranium so they could use it to make weapons.

With thorium there it isnt capable of being made into weapons grade. (although im sure someone could figure something out eventually, so it would cut down on proliferation concerns) Also it seems to have a far less half life.

Here is an article on it
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/?a=f

2/16/2010 9:16:10 PM

maybe the US will actually build new nuclear plants...that'd be nice, i suppose. but i suspect that (at least some of) the utilities who have submitted applications for new units will be more likely to re-license existing plants.

my two cents, anyhow...

2/16/2010 9:22:25 PM

I believe most US plants have already been relicensed. Many are increasing output through equipment upgrades and uncertainty harvesting. A great deal of effort has also been put into increasing capacity factors.

Eventually those avenues for maintaining/increasing capacity are going to run out.

2/16/2010 9:55:24 PM

i misspoke...i think that utilities will re-license their existing plants again.

yes, there's only so much additional capacity that the utilities can squeeze out of existing plants (uprates, etc), but i'm sure it's going to be cheaper to extend plant life yet again than it will be to decommission a unit and then replace it with a new nuke.

[Edited on February 16, 2010 at 10:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2010 10:04:36 PM

Quote :

"For PWRs, not much. Most of the differences are related to the fact one is alone in the ocean and the other is operated near populations. The basic designs are the same. BWRs are another thing, obviously."

is it ridiculous to think that in the future nuclear power will be much more localized, like on a carrier for example? instead of fewer, larger facilities...there would be more, smaller ones?

i can immediately think of security concerns, but just say hypothetically.

2/16/2010 10:07:25 PM

Quote :

"What he needs to do is tell Harry Reid to fuck himself and open Yucca Mountain Repository. This would bring jobs to Nevada and more security to the nuclear power industry."

Yucca Mountain is retarded. It's a solution from 30 years ago that doesn't really address the current realities of spent nuclear fuel.

2/16/2010 10:08:46 PM

Quote :

"You are arguing semantics. If the lenders know the government is backing the loans, the end result will be a low interest rate because there is little risk. It is essentially government loans via a middleman. The government only has to come up with money in the event of default. Its an easy way of not increasing our deficit on the balance sheet, but it is very much a government loan."

This is not semantics by the most contorted definition of the word. The government is not providing an absolute guarantee. Wall Street is still lending against a large myriad of risks, and the government loans don't cover the full cost anyway! You say "but it is very much a government loan", and you are totally off your rocker.

Quote :

"I dont know about the project you are talking about, but I assume this is regarding expansion, NOT a new plant. My comments regarding costs were directly related to new plant creation. My figures come directly from dominion power in their own studies. New reactors are only a start. There will need to be new plants built. They are cost prohibitive. And compared to enlarging a coal plant/NG/etc even new reactors really expensive (much more expensive than simply opening a new NG/Coal plant)."

You don't like what I said so you'll just assume I said something else? Yes I'm talking about new units.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html

That article contains the numbers I'm referring to. Note the following quote:

Quote :

"NRG spokesman Dave Knox said Toshiba's latest cost estimate is “part of the back-and-forth of negotiating.” If NRG thought the latest figure was the actual cost, “we wouldn't be spending money on the project,” he said."

Referring to $17 billion for a dual unit site. That is $8.5 billion per reactor. Got it? Utilities walk away at $8.5 billion / reactor without a doubt. The sticker price will be less than that. You were spouting nonsense about $25 billion. That is a laughable number.

2/17/2010 9:00:12 AM

So
Rods + Reactor + Steam generator + Pump + Generator + Turbines + Cooling Tower + Some hired guns to guard it all costs 17 billion dollars??

I can get fuel rods from the russian mafia for 120 mil.. oops did i say that outloud?

2/17/2010 9:25:58 AM

NIMBY

2/17/2010 9:27:43 AM

^^you forgot lobbyists, lawyers, environmental impact studies, nrc inspectors and union wages.

Quote :

"Yucca Mountain is retarded. It's a solution from 30 years ago that doesn't really address the current realities of spent nuclear fuel."

What's your solution then?

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 9:41 AM. Reason : quote]

2/17/2010 9:36:06 AM

^yep. If these are built within 10 yrs it will be a miracle.

2/17/2010 9:39:45 AM

Quote :

"This is not semantics by the most contorted definition of the word. The government is not providing an absolute guarantee. Wall Street is still lending against a large myriad of risks, and the government loans don't cover the full cost anyway! You say "but it is very much a government loan", and you are totally off your rocker."

Yes it is. What exactly are the other risks they have to concern themselves with? As I understand it, the loan guarantees against default in most cases between 80% and 100% of the project.

So, the simple question for you is what exactly are the major risks of a loan that is guaranteed 80-100%?

And according to this jounal publication, government loan guarantees are directly related to lower interest loans:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1341253

Quote :

"You don't like what I said so you'll just assume I said something else? Yes I'm talking about new units."

You obviously have had your head up your ass for a long time. I made an assumption for the sake of continuing an argument, and from what I can tell, my assumption is 100% correct. Since you cannot understand basic logic:

NEW REACTORS DOES NOT EQUAL NEW PLANT

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/nuclear.html

Quote :

"Referring to $17 billion for a dual unit site. That is $8.5 billion per reactor. Got it? Utilities walk away at $8.5 billion / reactor without a doubt. The sticker price will be less than that. You were spouting nonsense about $25 billion. That is a laughable number."

You really dont know shit about this, do you? Cost estimates for nuclear plants ALWAYS go over budget. The EIA analyzed cost overruns from previous construction estimates in the 60s and 70s, and ACTUAL construction costs were 209-380% over budgeted costs. New plants and even new reactors take a LONG time to build. WAY to many variables over a long period of time to be conservative with any costs. CONTRACTORS DO NOT GUARANTEE PRICE.

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

I attended the EIA Conference 2 years ago and listened to Eugene Grecheck, who is the VP of Nuclear Development at Dominion Power. During his session, they estimated that NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS would costs over 20 billion, and that for now, the only viable, yet still extremely expensive option was expansion of existing plants. The cost estimate by FP&L per kW was up to $8020, and that was three years ago. Costs are NOT going to go down because there is LIMITED nuclear expertise, and competition for all these new plants will drive prices up through 10,000 kW. If one of the VPs of one of the largest energy providers in the United States tells me that new plants cost over 20 billion, then he wins and you lose.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conf_pdfs/Tuesday/Grecheck.pdf

Your knowledge of this is laughable.



[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2010 9:56:31 AM

case in point:

Areva's building a new EPR in Finland right now. Budget was 3.2M Euros, with a completion date of Q1 2009. As of Q4 2009, they had already spent 5.5M Euros and they'll be lucky to complete the work by Q1 2012.

2/17/2010 10:49:58 AM

Quote :

"I attended the EIA Conference 2 years ago and listened to Eugene Grecheck, who is the VP of Nuclear Development at Dominion Power. During his session, they estimated that NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS would costs over 20 billion, and that for now, the only viable, yet still extremely expensive option was expansion of existing plants. The cost estimate by FP&L per kW was up to $8020, and that was three years ago. Costs are NOT going to go down because there is LIMITED nuclear expertise, and competition for all these new plants will drive prices up through 10,000 kW."

That's completely vague and uninformed to say that a new nuclear plant costs over 20 billion. For one, as I've already backed up, a dual unit doesn't cost 20 billion and Eugene Grecheck's presentation doesn't support that price tag either. You want to talk about a new SITE with >2 units? Then, yes, they could build a dozen reactors on one site costing a whole bunch more than 20 billion (and your claims are totally meaningless). Furthermore, the new plants on the board include both expansions of existing sites and new sites, the latter by Progress Energy for one. Your insistence on the use of the word "plant" leaves ambiguity.

Quote :

"You really dont know shit about this, do you? Cost estimates for nuclear plants ALWAYS go over budget. The EIA analyzed cost overruns from previous construction estimates in the 60s and 70s, and ACTUAL construction costs were 209-380% over budgeted costs. New plants and even new reactors take a LONG time to build. WAY to many variables over a long period of time to be conservative with any costs. CONTRACTORS DO NOT GUARANTEE PRICE."

I used the word "sticker price". I hopped that would be descriptive enough.

If you want to get into the entirely different topic of most likely cost, then we can open up that discussion. The fact that previous construction ran x2-4 as much as the original projections doesn't substantiate that the new units will come anything close to that. If you are searching for a president, the best comparison is the new Olkiluoto reactor being built because:
- It's designed to the current regulatory framework and
- It's being built in the Western world with similar rigor in the regulatory process
And Olkiluoto's problems are not as severe as the last American units. Also, the market tends to remember. The prices for new units here were struck with the past experience burned deep into memory. If you follow the news, you'll notice that the prices being tossed around increased significantly in the last 5 years, arriving at what we have now. The process of correction for the overruns has been ongoing and the "detailed engineering" phase of planning for the new U.S. units have taken into account vastly more factors than any build in history has. And the AP1000 units being built in China are coming in ahead of schedule and under budget.

The schedule was already pushed back 5 years and the price several fold ($1400/kW was the magic number in 2003) in preparation for what you're talking about. What you're proposing requires that all the problems manifest doubly.

Quote :

"^yep. If these are built within 10 yrs it will be a miracle."

The biggest risk to the completion of these projects is if they never get they never get the green light in the first place. They won't start unless there is astoundingly good assurance of success. If you don't believe me then you probably missed the last 5 years of developments.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 11:01 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2010 10:51:10 AM

Quote :

"or one, as I've already backed up, a dual unit doesn't cost 20 billion "

No you havent. That is not a new site. It is an expansion.

Florida power and light:
Florida Power & Light informed the Florida Public Service Commission in December 2007 that their estimated the cost for building two new nuclear units at Turkey Point in South Florida was $8,000 per installed kW, or a shocking $24 billion. And in early 2008, Progress Energy pegged its cost estimates for two new units in Florida to be about $14 billion plus an additional $3 billion for T&D.

from http://scitizen.com/future-energies/how-much-will-new-nuclear-power-plants-cost-_a-14-2287.html

God only knows what a NEW plant would cost as opposed to an expanded plant.

And to the rest of your bogus argument, you are not making your point very well. What is costs overseas, and what it costs here are two totally different factors. These companies didnt pull these high figures out of a hat. There is very little experienced labor in the U.S. that can handle nuclear construction. That means that the limited resources we have available to construct these things will push the price through the roof once demand is high enough. Countless other factors.

Fortunately for me, I have lots of numbers and publications on my side.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2010 11:02:55 AM

I stand corrected. A nuclear reactor could melt down and render the eastern seaboard uninhabitable, say a couple trillion dollars in damages, and they will have to pay exactly $411.9 million dollars. $300 million from insurance and $111.9 million out of pocket. Fucking brilliant.

I appreciate the correction, but this is still an outrageous degree of liability protection. It is only different by a matter of degrees, the effect is largely the same, as this is not even enough to bankrupt the fucking company for causing Armageddon.

2/17/2010 11:03:15 AM

Quote :

"And in early 2008, Progress Energy pegged its cost estimates for two new units in Florida to be about $14 billion plus an additional $3 billion for T&D."

Tell me - is this for two new units at an existing site, or for two new units at a new site?

Quote :

"These companies didnt pull these high figures out of a hat. There is very little experienced labor in the U.S. that can handle nuclear construction."

Yes, the availability of labor and companies capability of building the plants is limited, leading to the standing high prices.

Quote :

"That means that the limited resources we have available to construct these things will push the price through the roof once demand is high enough. Countless other factors"

Here is a distinction:
We are talking about new builds that constitute First-of-A-Kind-Engineering (FOAKE). Do we have the expertise to build these here? I hope so, since we've been exporting this technology for the last 20 years.

In the future, there may be sustained demand for units. The entire COL process is intended to make it easier to mass produce many of these units. If the FOAKE projects succeed, the production cost drops drastically for the upcoming units. Will demand still be great enough to drive the price through the roof? If it did that would be great for the vendors. However, they have plans to ramp up the pace. A lot. We could have 100 GW new nuclear by 2030 easily.

Quote :

"A nuclear reactor could melt down and render the eastern seaboard uninhabitable, say a couple trillion dollars in damages, and they will have to pay exactly $411.9 million dollars. $300 million from insurance and $111.9 million out of pocket."

So let's say that one of our uber-safe nuclear units overnight turns into the worst of the Soviet-era dangerous RBMK designs. Ok? Even then it will take monumental stupidity by the operators in creating a situation to create a situation far from normalcy which allows the design flaws to melt the reactor while at the same time belching the nuclear core into the atmosphere.

We already did this experiment. It resulted in a 4300 square km exclusion zone to limit exposure to 350 mSv projected lifetime radiation dose. How does this scale up to the Eastern Seaboard?

And in the case that this impossible event happens, the company would be on the hook for more than $111.9 million. It would go to court, the company would be ordered to pay more, almost guaranteed. But people don't consider this possibility very much. Maybe because it's impossible.

2/17/2010 11:42:49 AM

Quote :

"Tell me - is this for two new units at an existing site, or for two new units at a new site?"

To my knowledge, there are no plans for any NEW nuclear plants. There are only plans to add reactors to existing plants.

Quote :

"We are talking about new builds that constitute First-of-A-Kind-Engineering (FOAKE). Do we have the expertise to build these here? I hope so, since we've been exporting this technology for the last 20 years."

You might have all the brightest nuclear engineers in the U.S., they are not the people that build the plant. That is specialized high risk/high cost labor. It is not the same as building a normal power plant. It doesnt matter if we hold all the patents. If I were to take a guess, we'd probably be sending a shit ton of money France's way, as they do have the construction experience.

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2010 11:57:45 AM

Quote :

"To my knowledge, there are no plans for any NEW nuclear plants. There are only plans to add reactors to existing plants. "

I should try harder to avoid being snarky about this.

The Progress Energy site you referred to is the Levy County, FL site. This is close to their Crystal River, FL site. Crystal River has nuclear units on it and the proximity of the facilities offers an economic advantage, but make no mistake - Levy County is through and through a new site (nothing there right now) for the planned nuclear reactors. In other words, Progress Energy's plans are for a "new nuclear plant".

I'm not happy about this. I would rather them continue to build at existing sites. In my humble opinion we don't need to build on any new sites for the next 50 years. Japan has put 7 units on a single site and the most we have is 3, and we have many lonely reactors with no friends next to them.



However, given the stringent eye of the NRC, it often makes most sense to build a plant with nothing as far as the eye can see that isn't a dedicated support building for the plant itself. Companies will even locate training facilities off-site. So Progress looked at the economics and decided that opening up an entirely new site was the most economically beneficial.

Quote :

"You might have all the brightest nuclear engineers in the U.S., they are not the people that build the plant. That is specialized high risk/high cost labor. It is not the same as building a normal power plant. It doesnt matter if we hold all the patents. If I were to take a guess, we'd probably be sending a shit ton of money France's way, as they do have the construction experience."

France is represented by Areva, which is a French company but thoroughly multinational. The supply chain for new plants is also amazingly international.

It is worth note that we (USA) pioneered most of the technology involved in this discussion. General Electric developed the BWR and Westinghouse developed the PWR (maybe 'commercialized' would be more appropriate wording, national labs and military did most early work). Most of the right, however, have already been sold away. A modern form of the BWR - the ABWR is American technology now owned mostly by Japanese companies.

The construction experience is a difficult egg to crack. There is a large role by massive heavy industry conglomerates like Doosan, Toshiba, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, etc. But we also have massive heavy industry conglomerates, of which GE is worthy of mention. But more importantly, we have some key players that are ready to take on a large portion of this construction. The Shaw Group has been investing insane resources in pipe facilities that make things to NRC specs and they have the experience to back it up. A nuclear plant is

- Concrete
- Steel (and mostly pipe)

Going even further, we have several companies in line ready to pounce on a revival of nuclear. B&W has a plant design specially scaled down so that we can make the main pressure vessel domestically. Don't forget - we never stopped making naval reactors, and companies that do that are ready to retool for commercial reactors.

Areva's presence in the USA is just too large for me to believe that we would be sending a lot of money to France. The level of international collaboration is mind blowing. However, all signs point to us winning out in the long run. This is an export sector and we can grow it. There are too many competent contractors here for us to import French labor. The NRC is a curse, but also a blessing in that people know they can trust the oversight and integrity of American nuclear technology.

2/17/2010 12:39:06 PM

Quote :

"Isn't the president concerned that more nuclear power could make us, you know, look kind of French?"

Why? We still have way more nuclear power plants than France

[Edited on February 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM. Reason : nm]

2/17/2010 12:40:05 PM