and linked inside
http://bluecastleproject.com/files/fck_uploaded_files/BCP%20Economics%20and%20Water%20Use%20Rev%201b%202-7-11.pdf
It is a nice little executive summary, written in 2008 (no current numbers?!?) but contains several incongruities, such as:
1. Down on the bottom of page 4, the table "
Comparison of Direct Economic Attributes in 2008 ($2009)" assumes ~2800 MWe output from two units, but the standard output of an AP1000 is 1117 MWe. The CAP1400 upgrade is a joint venture between China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation and Circle W. Licensing issues and major components coming from China may be fodder for the anti's already working to astroturf opposition to the plant.
2. That same table assumes $100/MWh pricing in 2009 dollars (apparently 24/7/365 at 100% capacity factor). Ummmm, nope. Out of 8760 hours in a year, you might see that kind of money 100-200 hours. The rest of the year, it's around 2/3 that number. The analysis needs to be updated for the massive wind penetration into the market, and the new "duck curve" in the CAISO market.
3. The paper uses the word "agriculture" nearly as often as the word "nuclear". It's not just a Freudian slip....they know that to secure the water rights, they will have to lease/purchase someone's rights. Period. Full stop. They are right to say that there is unused water from Utah's share flowing down the muddy Green River.....but that share is based on allocations made in happier times. The water Utah doesn't use....is happily soaked up by California. The anti's will likely get intervenors up to US EPA, State Dept, and likely Mexico to protest any
new entity bellying up to the bar for consumptive water rights on a Colorado tributary. If they are smart, they will work through an existing set of rights, such as a municipality.
4. NO mention at all of the necessary transmission to bring all that power to market. I have a friend who knows a guy who talked to a barmaid.....suffice it to say, the lines don't exist to bring that much power to market. It would require a minimum of three 345kV 1272MCM lines over hundreds of miles, and major substation upgrades at every point of interconnection to bring the power to either the 4C triangle or Utah. Think of all the power lines you see coming from the Palo Verde yard, and subtract only a couple.
The first page mentions the coal plants that were not built. They weren't this size, and probably faced the same economic hurdles. Most of the generation in Utah is built near SLC and the mines. There isn't a lot of extra 'grid' compared to a region like TVA.
5. Saving the best for last, the page 4 table shows the number of permanent jobs (as part of the economic analysis) as being 825. For a dual unit CAP1400 first-of-type-in-US site?!? Some of the newly legal second-hand dope smoke from Boulder must have blown west to their office, because they would more likely need to make that number
1825 , or 2825 if they wanted to be more like SONGS
Again, I want to see this built, but we need to see current numbers, and I suggest they try: $45/MWh * 95% CF with 1800 bodies on site, over a 40 year license.
