News and Discussions > Nuke News

Whats gonna happen to Crystal River

<< < (5/5)

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

Sun Dog:
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:

--- 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."

--- End quote ---

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... [whistle]

spentfuel:
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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version