Author Topic: New Nuclear Plants Status (Read 148409 times)

Rennhack · « **on:** Dec 18, 2007, 05:15 »

The DOE has a great page that tracks the New construction process better than I can, see the link below.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/listings/nuclear-deployment-scorecards

Rennhack · « **Reply #1 on:** Feb 26, 2008, 03:27 »

You heard it here first...

- 3 ESPs have been issued – North Anna and Grand Gulf were both granted their permits
- 1 ESP is under review (Vogtle)
- I believe FPL has announced Turkey Point as the subject of their COLA, not St. Lucie.
- Our records indicate Mid-American ended their pursuit of a COLA last month.
- Progress’ Harris COLA has been submitted to the NRC (2/19)
- Grand Gulf will go in 2/27 (tomorrow - yay!)

Stay tuned for more updates.

RDTroja · « **Reply #2 on:** Feb 27, 2008, 07:19 »

Quote from: Rennhack on Feb 26, 2008, 03:27

You heard it here first...

- I believe FPL has announced Turkey Point as the subject of their COLA, not St. Lucie.

That is correct... they are already doing some preliminary land work for units 6 and 7 (1,2 and 5 are gas plants) south of units 3 and 4 (nuclear).

cbramsey · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 28, 2008, 08:50 »

Entergy News Release

http://www.entergy.com/news_room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=1130

Entergy, NuStart Announce Submittal of Application for New Nuclear License
Jackson, Miss. – Entergy and NuStart Energy Development today announced the submittal of a combined construction and operating license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a potential new nuclear unit in Port Gibson, Miss.

Rennhack · « **Reply #4 on:** Mar 07, 2008, 02:44 »

The DOE has a great page setup that tracks the New construction process better than I can, see the link below, and attachmets.

http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/neScorecard/neScorecard.html

B.PRESGROVE · « **Reply #5 on:** Mar 08, 2008, 02:06 »

Excellent link, lets you really get a pretty good feel for what is next and down the pike. Thanks Ren.

Rennhack · « **Reply #6 on:** Mar 08, 2008, 05:50 »

You are welcome. I'm just happy to find the resource.

ddm502001 · « **Reply #7 on:** Mar 09, 2008, 06:52 »

With the current economic shifts, is there concern these plants will end up along with those canceled in the 80's? I work at Callaway, we see a lot of activity toward Unit two but the commitment still isn't there among the managers. AUE is still considering coal units elsewhere.

matthew.b · « **Reply #8 on:** Mar 10, 2008, 10:12 »

Quote from: ddm502001 on Mar 09, 2008, 06:52

With the current economic shifts, is there concern these plants will end up along with those canceled in the 80's? I work at Callaway, we see a lot of activity toward Unit two but the commitment still isn't there among the managers. AUE is still considering coal units elsewhere.

I think you can list multiple reasons for all of the cancellations before, and only some of them are in play today.

In the 80's, many plants were done and ready to go online, but couldn't because of regulatory hurdles. I strongly doubt that will happen again. That delay compounded with high interest rates really hurt the utilities bottom lines. The most troubling trend today is the credit market. It will still take a long time to build new plants, and if the utilities have to pay exorbitant rates it will hurt.

As for the previous factors that I doubt are in play: Our grid is far more overextended than at any time previously. The possibility of an overbuild resulting in idle plants is negligible. An overwhelming majority of the capacity added in the last 20 years has been gas turbine plants. With the high price of natural gas, any new nuke brought online can easily bump those gas turbine plants offline and run 100% whenever they are available. Yes, some utilities are also adding coal, but I doubt it will be enough. Clean coal is also expensive to build coal, evening out the cost somewhat. Couple that with much more resistance to new coal and that helps nuclear.

Don't ignore the fact that in Texas, there was outcry over coal plant plans, but near silence over multiple nuclear plant applications. I believe the majority of public sentiment is on our side now.

rlbinc · « **Reply #9 on:** Mar 10, 2008, 10:43 »

Industrial Load Growth faded in the 1980's as manufacturing jobs were exported and recession ensued. There were still many plants on order post-TMI, which were ultimately cancelled due to slow electrical demand growth, high interest rates and rising vendor costs.

One out of three of those conditions exist today, and that reflects on the odds of a planned unit reaching commercial operation. Just like Shoreham, Midland, Black Fox, Marble Hill, Bellefonte, Cherokee, etc. - some plants won't make it.

If any are built, the odds favor Texas. Load growth, economic conditions, and political environment combine to favor builds in this region.

If we can build there and generate economically - other states will follow suit.

cbramsey · « **Reply #10 on:** Apr 09, 2008, 07:57 »

http://tinyurl.com/62wlx3

Westinghouse in Agreement With Georgia Power for Two AP1000 Nuclear Power Plants

- First announced EPC Contract in United States in 30 years
- Plants to be built at Alvin W. Vogtle site near Waynesboro, Ga

Well, the future is now!!!!! Southern Nuclear signed an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract.

Carolina Jethro · « **Reply #11 on:** Apr 09, 2008, 08:17 »

Sounds great but they are at least a year away from getting NRC approval and probably another year from all the other challenges they face. I will be glad to see it but I imagine it will be at least 2020 before another plant goes online. I hope I'm wrong. But being a safety guy now the construction will keep me busy.

War Eagle · « **Reply #12 on:** Apr 09, 2008, 08:40 »

Quote from: Carolina Jethro on Apr 09, 2008, 08:17

I will be glad to see it but I imagine it will be at least 2020 before another plant goes online. I hope I'm wrong. But being a safety guy now the construction will keep me busy.

I'll bet $1 on 2012.

Nuclear Renaissance · « **Reply #13 on:** Apr 09, 2008, 08:53 »

Quote from: War Eagle on Apr 09, 2008, 08:40

I'll bet $1 on 2012.

Can I get in on this action? I'll even give you odds - sync to grid on or after Jan 1, 2013, War Eagle owes me a dollar. Before that, I owe War Eagle a dollar and I pay for his upgrade to gold membership...

Agree?

War Eagle · « **Reply #14 on:** Apr 10, 2008, 12:37 »

Quote from: Nuclear Renaissance on Apr 09, 2008, 08:53

Can I get in on this action? I'll even give you odds - sync to grid on or after Jan 1, 2013, War Eagle owes me a dollar. Before that, I owe War Eagle a dollar and I pay for his upgrade to gold membership...

Agree?

Deal!

This includes half-built mothballed plants, right?

Nuclear Renaissance · « **Reply #15 on:** Apr 10, 2008, 07:38 »

Quote from: War Eagle on Apr 10, 2008, 12:37

This includes half-built mothballed plants, right?

Uh, no - you can't sneak a gold membership out of Watts Bar restart. This thread is about Generation III+ plants - APWR, ABWR, ESBWR, AP1000, EPR....

War Eagle · « **Reply #16 on:** Apr 10, 2008, 10:56 »

Aww shucks, I think I'll owe you a buck. Maybe I'll read the thread next time, haha!

B.PRESGROVE · « **Reply #17 on:** Apr 10, 2008, 07:14 »

hey hey hey hey, if there is money going around then let some of the other pukes play here. 10 to one odds that things will be finalized and construction started b4 2012 and first power to grid by 2017. Takers anyone, takers?

NukeLDO · « **Reply #18 on:** Jun 11, 2008, 10:00 »

Thanks for that link Ren. Very informative. I can see why the nuclear Navy should be worried about losing people to the commercial industry if only have of what's being proposed comes to fruition.

wlrun3@aol.com · « **Reply #19 on:** Jun 30, 2008, 11:38 »

"The realistic expectations of industry experts are that the first new nuclear power plant will begin commercial operation in 2017, with a potential for up to 15-20 new plants coming online in the years shortly thereafter.

The issue is simple and inescapable: half of the nuclear power radiation protection workforce is 50 years old or older and is likely to retire or leave the industry for other reasons over the next 10 years. At the same time, the entry rate of new radiation protection staff into the industry is on a declining trend, such that only about 10 percent of the workforce is under 40 years
old. This means that the nuclear power industry will either need to develop and bring into the workplace more than 1,000 new health physicists and technicans over the next 10 years, or it will need to substantially change how radiation protection is conducted at nuclear power plants in the future, so as not to need as many staff, or both."

Ralph Andersen, CHP
Health Physics News, July 2008

exocom · « **Reply #20 on:** Jun 30, 2008, 08:40 »

As much as I would love this "Nuclear Renaissance" to come true, I just do not see it happening. Do a little research into major financing and you will find none of the major banks ready to back the construction of new nuclear plants. It will probably take the US government to build new nuclear power units. I can see NRG possibly building new units at STP and TVA being a government entity building Bellefonte along with the rest of NuStart. Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the utilities jumped at free government money from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Seems like their real intentions are to keep their options open and just do enough on their new nuclear plants to keep the US taxpayer money coming into their coffers. Hoping I'm wrong, but I am not optimistic on this subject.

Nuclear Renaissance · « **Reply #21 on:** Jun 30, 2008, 11:19 »

Quote from: exocom on Jun 30, 2008, 08:40

As much as I would love this "Nuclear Renaissance" to come true, I just do not see it happening. Do a little research into major financing and you will find none of the major banks ready to back the construction of new nuclear plants. It will probably take the US government to build new nuclear power units. I can see NRG possibly building new units at STP and TVA being a government entity building Bellefonte along with the rest of NuStart. Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the utilities jumped at free government money from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Seems like their real intentions are to keep their options open and just do enough on their new nuclear plants to keep the US taxpayer money coming into their coffers. Hoping I'm wrong, but I am not optimistic on this subject.

I think you are overlooking the fact that in the regulated utility markets, the states are going to allow the utilities to start recovering costs in present-day billing, regardless of whether the plant ever ends up turning a generator.

B.PRESGROVE · « **Reply #22 on:** Jul 02, 2008, 08:31 »

Excellent point. I know here in my state the utility is already raising rates due to fuel costs and in anticipation of building. The state gov already said they could recoup expenses on the back of its customers when they do decide to build.

exocom · « **Reply #23 on:** Jul 04, 2008, 01:19 »

The state governments of this state and the one just south of here have authorized the recovering of costs in present-day billing. At least one of the local major utilities will not persue it's new nuclear plant without a partner. The present day billing may give the utilities more security for the finance companies to back a new plant. I still do not see it happening even with this added incentive. I hope I'm wrong, but so far it all seems to be smoke and mirrors.

ihadmail · « **Reply #24 on:** Oct 28, 2008, 09:09 »

Supposedly the utility I work for has secured 1/2 of the funding for their proposed new nuclear. The other 1/2 will come from rate increases. They definately just recieved a permit from the state to begin pre-construction activities: excavating, restructuring roadways, etc. I think they may actually be building a new unit so long as our upcoming political situation does not put a stop to it.
Just my .02 though

Author Topic: New Nuclear Plants Status (Read 148409 times)

cbramsey

B.PRESGROVE

ddm502001

matthew.b

rlbinc

cbramsey

Nuclear Renaissance

Nuclear Renaissance

B.PRESGROVE

wlrun3@aol.com

exocom

Nuclear Renaissance

B.PRESGROVE

exocom

ihadmail