Author Topic: Whats gonna happen to Crystal River (Read 16260 times)

shootinghx · « **on:** Jun 22, 2011, 10:07 »

When they were tightening up the Containment tendon...the cracked the containment ...from top to bottom.
Are they gonna decommission it or build a new containment???

nukengr · « **Reply #1 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 02:22 »

They have to find out why it happened 1st then see if it make business sense to fix it. Progress is supposed to be releasing those findings soon.

Fermi2 · « **Reply #2 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 04:39 »

I can't say I have any inside info but I heard the plant is a goner.

Pman52 · « **Reply #3 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 06:12 »

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/continued-problems-at-crystal-river-nuclear-plant-could-lead-to-reactors/1175325

Caught this story on nucpros.com about a week ago. Interesting article.

Unfortunately it's not looking good for the home team I'd say...

Higgs · « **Reply #4 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 07:01 »

I am not a structural engineer, but based on what I know of our from the UFSAR, with the cracking problems they have, I don't see how it could be reparable. Replaceable? Like someone above said, they'd have to see if that makes sense economically. I doubt it would. I could only imagine that cost being sky high. I mean, is it even possible? So long as there is fuel in that building, among other things, I don't see how you could just take it down and put another back up.

I think Mike is right, it's done for.

Pman52 · « **Reply #5 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 07:16 »

Quote from: TheHiggs on Jun 23, 2011, 07:01

I am not a structural engineer, but based on what I know of our from the UFSAR, with the cracking problems they have, I don't see how it could be reparable. Replaceable? Like someone above said, they'd have to see if that makes sense economically. I doubt it would. I could only imagine that cost being sky high. I mean, is it even possible? So long as there is fuel in that building, among other things, I don't see how you could just take it down and put another back up.

I think Mike is right, it's done for.

I believe they have like 4 coal units on site as well. For the loss of one unit, I would say they'll probably cut their losses and look at adding a cheaper plant like a combined cycle to the mix. The license expires in 2016...so they don't have long. I'm guessing that they're probably gonna pull the plug on this one as well...

Higgs · « **Reply #6 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 07:50 »

Oh yeah, that would be my bet. Didn't know they ran out so soon.

redline · « **Reply #7 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 08:22 »

But dont lose site of the big picture. Currently they're looking a about $1B to replace the containment building structure. That's only 20% or less of what a new unit would cost...and this unit is licensed! The biggest fear out there right now for utilities considering new units is the possibility of spending all that money and then not getting licensed. Crystal river will run again!
I also dont have any insider information but a heard a senior VP say it. If a senior VP says it and I hear it...that aint insider info but its a good indicator.

Higgs · « **Reply #8 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 08:31 »

1 billion. wow. I will be shocked if they replace it, considering Exelon is shutting down a plant for half that (cooling towers). Apples and oranges though. What a project!

shootinghx · « **Reply #9 on:** Jun 23, 2011, 10:14 »

thanx guys.... good stuff

jams723 · « **Reply #10 on:** Jun 25, 2011, 10:29 »

Quote from: Starkist on Jun 24, 2011, 09:11

Holy cow, that control room looks WAY fancier then ours

B&W designed a Cadillac, great plant once you get used to a once through steam generator.

dea · « **Reply #11 on:** Jun 25, 2011, 11:28 »

A billion dollars seems awful high unless they have to redesign the whole thing. From what I have read the problem was part design and part th manner in which the tensioning/detensioning was done. It looks like some of the repair worl is covered by insurance which may be a factor in a decision whether to continue operation. Also their license renewal is in progress, but I'm sure this will affect the issuance, especially if there is a change in the design.

nukengr · « **Reply #12 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 03:43 »

If they do fix it, it's going to cost a bundle. We'll find out once the market closes today by the looks of it.

Already Gone · « **Reply #13 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 04:57 »

Wow!
It's hard to predict what they will choose to do with this, but $1Billion is a lot of money for a 35 year-old nuke plant. And $1Billion price tag today could run a lot higher by the time the work is done.
You can buy a lot of cogen capacity for that kind of money, and get into the decommissioning fund right away.
I would love to hear the rationale behind spending the money to fix this if they do.
It is going to almost certainly depend on the amount of insurance coverage, as well as the readiness to re-license the unit if this does get fixed. Anybody making book?

MacGyver · « **Reply #14 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 05:00 »

Poke it with a fork!

thenuttyneutron · « **Reply #15 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 07:32 »

I know a unit that will be in need of new Once Through Steam Generators.

TEX-INSP · « **Reply #16 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 08:26 »

I take this press release from today as a yes it will be fixed!!!

https://www.progress-energy.com/company/media-room/news-archive/press-release.page?title=Progress+Energy+provides+update+on+Crystal+River+Nuclear+Plant+outage&pubdate=06-27-2011

Higgs · « **Reply #17 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 08:34 »

Wow!!! Nice!

Pman52 · « **Reply #18 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 08:36 »

Quote from: Nutty Neutron on Jun 27, 2011, 07:32

I know a unit that will be in need of new Once Through Steam Generators.

Looks like The Besse is out of luck...

TEX-INSP · « **Reply #19 on:** Jun 27, 2011, 08:53 »

I'm glad we are fixing it. Smart move.

Laundry Man · « **Reply #20 on:** Jun 28, 2011, 08:27 »

Good to hear. I liked it there many years ago.
LM

Sun Dog · « **Reply #21 on:** Jun 28, 2011, 08:54 »

The go/no-go decision must be predicated on the NRC commitment to issue a license extension. To me, the decision to replace the SGs is evidence that PE is confident that they will receive the extension. That confidence is reflected in this statement from their CEO:

"The Crystal River Nuclear Plant is our least-cost resource to operate, and with it in service, our customers save about $300 million a year in fuel costs. That translates to significant savings over the life of the plant."

HydroDave63 · « **Reply #22 on:** Jun 28, 2011, 11:02 »

Quote from: Sun Dog on Jun 28, 2011, 08:54

The go/no-go decision must be predicated on the NRC commitment to issue a license extension. To me, the decision to replace the SGs is evidence that PE is confident that they will receive the extension. That confidence is reflected in this statement from their CEO:

"The Crystal River Nuclear Plant is our least-cost resource to operate, and with it in service, our customers save about $300 million a year in fuel costs. That translates to significant savings over the life of the plant."

I'm hoping that is the case....but with 2 looming large capital expenditures, in a market of plentiful (in the lower 48) nat gas at ~$4.25/MMBtu, there will be some bean-counters that will point out that PGN is already constrained on revenues, and will have to lower dividend to handle that expense. Lowering dividend tends to reduce bigwig stock option values, and cause org chart changes. Just sayin...

spentfuel · « **Reply #23 on:** Jun 29, 2011, 12:32 »

I'll have to add I think the pending merger with Duke has a lot to do with the decision to do the fix. As for expenditures its still a heck of a lot cheaper to fix one then build a new one

two cents

sf

Author Topic: Whats gonna happen to Crystal River (Read 16260 times)

shootinghx

nukengr

Fermi2

Pman52

Pman52

shootinghx

nukengr

MacGyver

thenuttyneutron

Pman52

Sun Dog