Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu New Nuclear Plants Status

Author Topic: New Nuclear Plants Status  (Read 125435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #50 on: Feb 09, 2012, 06:12 »
New nuke is dead.
fuggetaboutit. 

Congratulations Vogtle 3 and 4 on the COL! 

The first of many more to come!  2012 should be a good year, several more on the docket!
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #51 on: Feb 09, 2012, 06:27 »
Congrats! Too bad they low balled me. :)

I have my eye on the proposed units in Idaho.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #52 on: Feb 09, 2012, 06:52 »
The Units in Idaho will never happen.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #53 on: Feb 09, 2012, 06:57 »
The Units in Idaho will never happen.

That's what I'm thinking after reviewing the company's website and talking with their communication director. They seem enthusiastic and optimistic! :) I have my eye on it none the less! They want to use the South Korean design APR1400. I'm not even sure that design is on the NRC's plate right now.

Justin
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

drayer54

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #54 on: Feb 09, 2012, 07:27 »
That's what I'm thinking after reviewing the company's website and talking with their communication director. They seem enthusiastic and optimistic! :) I have my eye on it none the less! They want to use the South Korean design APR1400. I'm not even sure that design is on the NRC's plate right now.
Justin
Southern Company's CEO did an interview on the closing bell on CNBC today. I gathered that Nat gas prices staying low is the hold up from these units popping up everywhere. Companies have to believe those prices will be raised someday and want a cheap nuclear option still making 7cents/kw-hr power.

Nukes should be a good hedge against green legislation too.
« Last Edit: Feb 09, 2012, 07:28 by Drayer »

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #55 on: Feb 09, 2012, 10:07 »
That's what I'm thinking after reviewing the company's website and talking with their communication director. They seem enthusiastic and optimistic! :) I have my eye on it none the less! They want to use the South Korean design APR1400. I'm not even sure that design is on the NRC's plate right now. 

The unit have fallen off of the NRC projections completely after a few years of "next year for submittal".

VC Summer 2&3 (also AP-1000) should be next.  The review is complete and awaiting Commission action, probably next quarter - could be sooner!
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

wlrun3@aol.com

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #56 on: Feb 09, 2012, 11:49 »

The NRC approved the license for two new reactors at Georgia's Vogtle nuclear plant Thursday afternoon -- the first time since 1978 a new nuclear plant has been licensed in the U.S.The new reactors are Westinghouse 1100 MW PWRs. They are expected to come online in 2016 and 2017.




« Last Edit: Feb 09, 2012, 11:55 by wlrun3 »

tagline

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #57 on: Feb 10, 2012, 12:32 »
Hopefully the floodgates will really open up. We need about 100 more. Just wishful thinking for all who need jobs.

matthew.b

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #58 on: Feb 10, 2012, 02:11 »
Hopefully the floodgates will really open up. We need about 100 more. Just wishful thinking for all who need jobs.

We have technology today that can convert natural gas and coal to gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  It's even economically feasible if oil prices remain where they are.

I'd love to see our base load generation switch to nuclear and then we can use coal and natural gas to free us from imported oil.

Offline Starkist

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #59 on: Feb 10, 2012, 02:19 »
We have technology today that can convert natural gas and coal to gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.  It's even economically feasible if oil prices remain where they are.

I'd love to see our base load generation switch to nuclear and then we can use coal and natural gas to free us from imported oil.

You should get gold member access to discuss this in more depth :p

Offline Rennhack

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #60 on: Feb 10, 2012, 05:08 »
Hopefully the floodgates will really open up. We need about 100 more. Just wishful thinking for all who need jobs.

The COL applications suggest that the floodgates are firmly intact.

Offline Rennhack

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #61 on: Feb 14, 2012, 01:05 »
The Nuclear energy Institute does a good job of tracking new plant licensing.  Their last update was January 2011.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/New_Nuclear_Plant_Status.xls

The NRC has some good information too, they last updated their site on March 10, 2011.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

Date of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster: 11 March 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I COULD rest my case, but here is more:

The NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia.  You might ask who the 1 guy is that opposed it.  None other than NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who has close ties to congressional Democrats. The NRC top dog just voted against the first new nuclear reactors in 30 years. That's not the way that confidence is inspired in the average American following TMI and Fukushima.

The case for widespread U.S. nuclear plant construction has eroded due to abundant natural gas supplies, slow electricity demand growth in a weak U.S. economy, lack of financing and uncertainty following the Fukushima disaster.  A 1,000-megawatt natural gas plant takes a few years to permit and build and costs up to $1 billion for the most efficient, combined-cycle model. A similar-sized nuclear reactor however could take five to 10 years to develop and build and cost more than $7 billion.

Some headlines from the past year: "NRG Abandons Project for 2 Reactors in Texas". April 2011.  "Progress Energy looking to cancel main construction contract for building Levy County nuclear plant". January 2012

Don't get me wrong, the headline "FIRST-EVER COMBINED LICENSES TO BE ISSUED" and "U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation" makes me very happy.  And there IS a small silver lining in the grey clouds.  "nuclear industry officials say they expect just five new reactors to enter service by 2020 -- Southern's two Vogtle reactors, two at Summer in South Carolina and one at Watts Bar in Tennessee".  Five is better than none, but less than the 25 that applied for construction and operating licenses in 2007.

Industry experts say building interest is centered in Southeast states like Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Alabama and Florida, where traditional utility regulation offers companies the best chance to make a profit on the sizable investment needed to develop new reactors.

There are some good headlines too: "Americans' Support for Nuclear Energy Holds at Majority Level 6 Months after Japan Accident". October 2011.

The Government has offered Southern and its partners $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees as an incentive. Fanning said he expects the U.S. Energy Department to finalize the loan in the second quarter of 2012.  The units will cost Southern and partners about $14 billion and enter service as soon as 2016 and 2017

Read this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209

Bottom line: 2-5 new reactors in the next 10 years.  These reactors lay the ground work for more when the price of natural gas gets out of control again.  These new nuclear plants are more of a way to send a message to the natural gas suppliers about keeping their prices in check, than a full resurgence of nuclear power.  It’s still not cost effective to do it on a large scale, but building one lets the natural gas suppliers know that the utilities DO have other options.

 [pigfly]
« Last Edit: Feb 14, 2012, 01:36 by Rennhack »

Offline wingnut

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #62 on: Feb 14, 2012, 06:19 »
Thanks for all the info sources. I recently left Watts Bar where TVA shook things up to get back on schedule. I think they'll pull it off. Jazco's vote shouldn't be a suprise.

Offline Gamma Glue

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • If you're not first, you're last!
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #63 on: Feb 15, 2012, 08:23 »
Doesn't TVA have an application or two for the mPower SMR?
Southern, SCANA, Progress and Duke are still part of the APOG (AP1000 Owners Group). So even if they aren't planning on building yet, they still have an active roll is the ones currently in the works.

thehpgreg

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #64 on: Feb 15, 2012, 04:03 »
Not sure if it makes a difference or not, but NRC gives a somewhat more up-to-date picture of where new plants/reactors are in the application process on their Expected New Application Schedule (Oct 2011):

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

and on their Application Schedule for New Reactors:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/new-rx-licensing-app-legend.pdf

Not sure this means alot more reactors are on the way, but it does suggest there are still a good number of companies still looking to go through the application process.

matthew.b

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #65 on: Feb 17, 2012, 10:14 »
The Nuclear energy Institute does a good job of tracking new plant licensing.  Their last update was January 2011.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/New_Nuclear_Plant_Status.xls

The NRC has some good information too, they last updated their site on March 10, 2011.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

Date of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster: 11 March 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

I COULD rest my case, but here is more:

Correlation is not causation.

The standard template that media types throw out is that the last round of nuclear was stopped by TMI.  Every time there is an article on nuclear, they drudge up TMI and state that it is the cause.  That's WAY to simple of an explanation and I would argue that TMI was a minor cause of the last time nuclear ground to a halt.

Take a look back to 1946.  Every little town had their own little power plant.  Many were mechanized, but not automated.  Their small size led to a massive man power required and their efficiency was low.  At the same time, demand for electricity was a tiny fraction of what it was in the mid 70's.  There was the REA, but many households still didn't have power.  Those that did mainly used them for mainly lighting and not a lot else.  In the industrial side, many factories had their own power plant, and many had a central steam engine with line shafting running each machine.  Yes, a factory built even 10 or 15 years before would have used electric motors, but there were plenty of ones still in operation.

The next 30 years saw the rise of the massive central station.  At first it was only coal, but by the beginning of the 70's nuclear was coming into play.  Transmission lines were put in, and each of the little small town stations were dismantled, abandoned or relegated to emergency backup status.  Factories got rid of their own power plant and put electric motors on every machine.  At home we saw the widespread introduction of the television, universal refrigerator ownership, electric ranges and electric dryers going into many homes.  During this time the rate of central plant installation was incredible, with orders coming in monthly at many times.

Enter the mid to late 1970's:  A lot of forces came into play all at once.  The demand growth disappeared.  Credit became insanely tight.  The economy dropped, causing more of a reduction in demand.  In the early 70's, the order rate was high.  By 1977 it was a trickle.  Only a few in 1978, with none in late 1978.  TMI happened in March 1979.  If TMI was the cause, how did it retroactively stop them in 1978?  Not only that, did TMI cause a cessation in new coal plant orders?   

Back to your example:   Did Fukishima cause any cancellations?  So far, no.  There haven't been any announced post Fukishima.  The applications were announced in 2005 through 2008.  In 2009 and 2010 many were canceled.  This was for the reasons you state later in your post.  The cheap price of gas is a big factor.  Again a crappy economy killed demand, but at least this time credit isn't insanely expensive because of our changed monetary policy.  Had Fukishima never happened, there is little likelihood for any utility to take on a new nuclear plant.

The NRC voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Co to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. 

15 years ago many nuclear experts were saying that all of the new plants would be on existing sites.  It makes sense.  Locals have lived next to a nuclear power plant for as long as they can remember.  If it bugged them, they would have moved away.  This takes away much of the NIMBY argument, and many locals welcome more jobs.  On top of that, if the plant was well sited before, then it still remains a good site.  Power lines are there, heavy transport routes are there, water is there, and natural hazards are already well studied.

I expect few or no plants to ever be sited in a green field.



You might ask who the 1 guy is that opposed it.  None other than NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who has close ties to congressional Democrats. The NRC top dog just voted against the first new nuclear reactors in 30 years. That's not the way that confidence is inspired in the average American following TMI and Fukushima.

Jaczko was put in there to stop new nuclear.  He was the point guy on killing Yuka Mountain when he worked for Harry Ried.

matthew.b

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #66 on: Feb 17, 2012, 10:16 »
The case for widespread U.S. nuclear plant construction has eroded due to abundant natural gas supplies, slow electricity demand growth in a weak U.S. economy, lack of financing and uncertainty following the Fukushima disaster.  A 1,000-megawatt natural gas plant takes a few years to permit and build and costs up to $1 billion for the most efficient, combined-cycle model. A similar-sized nuclear reactor however could take five to 10 years to develop and build and cost more than $7 billion.

-snip-

These reactors lay the ground work for more when the price of natural gas gets out of control again.  These new nuclear plants are more of a way to send a message to the natural gas suppliers about keeping their prices in check, than a full resurgence of nuclear power.  It’s still not cost effective to do it on a large scale, but building one lets the natural gas suppliers know that the utilities DO have other options.

Just some more numbers to ponder on top of your two about capital costs.

A nuke is around $125 mil a year to keep running.

At today's natural gas prices, that combustion turbine plant will cost $400 mil a year to run.  At 2005 natural gas prices, it would be over $1 bil a year.

Offline Gamma Glue

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • If you're not first, you're last!
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #67 on: Feb 17, 2012, 11:48 »
I expect few or no plants to ever be sited in a green field.

You never know...

http://www.northescambia.com/?p=8787

Offline HydroDave63

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #68 on: Feb 17, 2012, 12:46 »
Just some more numbers to ponder on top of your two about capital costs.

A nuke is around $125 mil a year to keep running.

At today's natural gas prices, that combustion turbine plant will cost $400 mil a year to run.  At 2005 natural gas prices, it would be over $1 bil a year.

1 MWh ~ 3.4 MMBtu @ 100% conversion. Most combined-cycle gas units run ~50% thermal efficiency, so we'll say 6.8 MMBTU per MWh. Mar12 gas is going for 2.72/MMBTu right now , that gives a fuel cost of $18.50/MWh. Settle price this hour real-time in the So Cal market where nuke is only 10% of the energy and not much hydro, thus mostly gas , is between $28-30/MWh. Lower capital costs and staffing allows profits from the remaining $10/MWh. In the last 25 years, gas has been at or below $4/MMBtu for half of that time, with some volatile $5-12 years.

So, your reference CT plant (assuming comb-cycle) would have a fuel cost for the past year of 24/7/365 ops closer to $300 million assuming the past 2 years of ~$4 nat gas. $170 million today.

Capitalize $4 billion for each new Vogtle unit over 40 years (each plant's share of the loan drawdown), a mere $100 million capital overhead per year. Fuel is cheap but not free. Staffing? Variable, since some sites run efficiently and some sites have 2800 bodies for a dual unit. But for discussion we'll assume your number of $125 mil O&M. Total cost $225 mil. by modest assumptions.

The beancounters will ask you: Which is more likely in the next 5 years, nat gas doubling in price, or your new S/Gs having early wear, turbine issues, etc. Plus, what will our disposal costs be in 2050?

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #69 on: Feb 21, 2012, 08:52 »
As expected:  :)

Twelve groups said on Feb. 16 that they are filing action in federal court again the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in regards to the Plant Vogtle license issued to a Southern Co.-led (NYSE: SO) consortium on Feb. 9, 2012.
The groups said the NRC is violating federal law by issuing the Vogtle license without considering important public safety and environmental implications in the wake of the catastrophic Fukushima accident in Japan. They will ask federal judges to order the NRC to prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Vogtle reactors that explains how cooling systems for the reactors and spent fuel storage pools will be upgraded to protect against earthquakes, flooding and prolonged loss of electric power to the site.
The organizations are filing the lawsuit Feb. 16 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The 12 organizations taking the legal action are: the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Friends of the Earth, Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Concerned Citizens of Shell Bluff, Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions, Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Nuclear Watch South.

As in the past they will most likely be tossed as  [BS], but a bunch of LLD's will make a bunch of money and laugh all the way to the bank.  And I'll bet none of them are anywhere close to the site!
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

chuckdhuff

  • Guest

Offline HydroDave63

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #71 on: Jul 14, 2012, 01:17 »
Since there's basically no future in coal, and the government is going out of its way to hinder the approval of new nuclear plants, and the companies often have to rely on ineffective and inefficient union labor, I worry about the future of the grid in America. The price of electricity is probably going to double or triple for most people in the coming years and we may have ongoing brown-outs comparable to what California has gone through.

1. Raising the cost of human activity has always been the goal of some of the NGOs that propose increased regulation, carbon taxes, mercury standards, etc.

2. "Brown-outs" refer to low voltage on the distribution system seen at the end-user level, often caused by lack of additional power resource above what is being used. Rather than build new capacity, think back to how many times you've heard or seen ads and commentary blurbs on all forms of media, where the ad discusses "smarter grids, smarter technology, safer more secure energy supply" yadda yadda. Guess what a "smart gird" does? That's right, computer-generated internet-delivered load shed of large electric devices (air conditioning 'Saver Switches' have been around for years, but now there are "Smart Device" refrigerators, washers dryers etc). That way the power company can charge more for the fancy digital power meter, and charge you as they turn OFF your power in a rotating load shed. Sounds 'SMART" to me  >:(

How does this relate to nuclear? Check out the joint FERC-NRC meetings from 6/15, featuring the Balding Avenger himself as special guest.

http://capitolconnection.net/capcon/ferc/061512/fercarchive_wmv.htm

chuckdhuff

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #72 on: Jul 16, 2012, 10:05 »

I may take flak for saying it, but this is what you get when you have to use union labor.

One of the SROs told me that during construction at the plant I'm at, which wound up costing about 500-600% of what it was supposed to, that tens of millions of dollars worth of tools, materials, equipment, etc, were simply stolen from the site and that the workers from the various "locals" basically took anything they could get their hands on.

I've met some great guys in the unions who are easily worth 3-4 or even 5-6 of the other union guys. The most hard-working guys, those with great work ethics and strong personal integrity, are basically carrying 5-6 lazy bums on their backs.

Since there's basically no future in coal, and the government is going out of its way to hinder the approval of new nuclear plants, and the companies often have to rely on ineffective and inefficient union labor, I worry about the future of the grid in America. gone through.

I have worked sites that were all union, all non-union, and a mix of both. In my experience, there is an equal amount of slackers in both groups. It isn't the type of labor you use that makes the difference but the quality of worker that the contract company sends to site. I have noticed this to be true everywhere I have worked. It is not limited to the nuclear industry. [2cents]

drayer54

  • Guest
Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #73 on: Jul 16, 2012, 01:20 »

I have worked sites that were all union, all non-union, and a mix of both. In my experience, there is an equal amount of slackers in both groups. It isn't the type of labor you use that makes the difference but the quality of worker that the contract company sends to site. I have noticed this to be true everywhere I have worked. It is not limited to the nuclear industry. [2cents]

If you look at his prior posts, you'll see he is just using every thread he can to share his anti-union views and trying to raise the distraction flag.

I agree that the union aspect is the least of the issues that are raising the cost of nuclear construction and would point much more heavily to the regulatory side of the house.

Offline Crusher

Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
« Reply #74 on: Oct 05, 2012, 02:36 »
I expect continued red tape from the current Obama Administration.  The positioning of Allison Macfarlane as head of the NRC was just another way to slow down progress on new builds.  I expect law suits, regulatory grid lock, and new environmental impact studies ordered.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?