NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Rennhack on Dec 18, 2007, 05:15

Title: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: 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.

http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/neScorecard/neScorecard.html
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: RDTroja on Feb 27, 2008, 07:19
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).
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: cbramsey on Feb 28, 2008, 08:50
Entergy News Release

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

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack 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
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: B.PRESGROVE 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Mar 08, 2008, 05:50
You are welcome. I'm just happy to find the resource.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: matthew.b on Mar 10, 2008, 10:12
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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: rlbinc 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. 
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: cbramsey on Apr 09, 2008, 07:57
http://tinyurl.com/62wlx3 (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.

 ;D
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Carolina Jethro 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. 
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: War Eagle on Apr 09, 2008, 08:40
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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Nuclear Renaissance on Apr 09, 2008, 08:53
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?
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: War Eagle on Apr 10, 2008, 12:37
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?
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Nuclear Renaissance on Apr 10, 2008, 07:38
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....
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: War Eagle 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!
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: B.PRESGROVE 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?
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: NukeLDO 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: wlrun3@aol.com 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







Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Nuclear Renaissance on Jun 30, 2008, 11:19
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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: B.PRESGROVE 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: exocom 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: ihadmail 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
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: sloughter on Jun 18, 2009, 12:53
One of the best statistics comes from the Sierra Club; they claim that there are 30,000 coal-related deaths every year. That works out to about 1,000,000 deaths to coal-related diseases during the past 35 years i.e about when the unofficial moratorium on nuclear power was declared. Anybody know how many people have died from the nuclear energy fuel cycle in the same period of time? I have incorporated this in an article I am writing called The Role of Nuclear Power in North America.

Interesting statistic: According to a recent World Health Organization Report, so far 23 years later, 40 people total have died because of Chernobyl, a plant with a tarpaper roof, just like American plants! By the way, I am a geologist and can state categorically that the "China Syndrome" has never occurred, could never occur and will never occur; it is great entertainment, lousy science.

I predict in my article with several large reactor complexes on Hudson Bay, it should be possible to bring in 1500-3000gigawatts of installed capacity in 100 years at a cost of 8c/kWh in constant dollars. Anyone wanting a preliminary copy of the article, feel free to get in touch.
The DOE has a great page that tracks the New construction process better than I can, see the link below.

http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/neScorecard/neScorecard.html
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Jimmykroffa on Jun 18, 2009, 08:35
DTE Energy in SE Michigan applied for a license for FERMI 3.....
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Fermi2 on Jun 18, 2009, 10:38
DTE Energy in SE Michigan applied for a license for FERMI 3.....

Fermi3 will never be built.

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Jimmykroffa on Jun 18, 2009, 11:20
True. With the decreased load from the closing of the auto plants, and the push for energy efficiency the need for it will probably never be there. Also DTE's cost to build Fermi 2 really put a hurting on their finances when it was being built. I don't think they are prepared to take on that financial burden given the current state of the economy.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Fermi2 on Jun 18, 2009, 11:41
Regardless of the economy DTE is too bottom line of a company to build another Nuke. If they told the Shareholders they were going to pat them 3 dollars a share and in building a nuke they could pay only 2.99999999 a share they simply won't do it. There's nothing wrong with that by the way as their purpose in life is to make money for the shareholders. IIRC the first so many utilities that ask for a license are going to get some sort of tax break or incentive for even considering it. DTE is a small utility and any breaks they can get are welcome.

Mike
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: MeterSwangin on Jun 18, 2009, 09:50
New nuke is dead.

Requires 3 vital ingredients:  1) massive funding from credit markets, 2) stong enough customer demand to persuade Wall Street to invest, and 3) timely government review and approvals.

That is clearly oh-for-three.  Credit markets are on life support, demand is in the crapper, and the NRC has a 10-year plan to start the 3 year CLA reviews...but is too dysfunctional to issue wet tissue.

Oh, and about the ultimate bogie; Yucky Mountain.

fuggetaboutit.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Adam Grundleger on Jul 30, 2009, 09:09
Makes me wonder:  How many license extensions will the current plants be granted?  Seeing as the entire plant is replaced part by part several times over the proposed forty year lifetime, it would seem justifiable to extend current plant life nearly indefinitely.  The current round of license extensions seems to support this.  At least a few plants will be operating when eighty years old...

Besides, once the grid reaches a certain critical point of overload/undersupply there will be no choice but to build new plants.  Once it becomes less fashionable to push the fallacy of wind/solar/biomass/nonsense, there will be only a couple of options left: nuke, coal, or gas. 

I'm more worried that the longer we wait to build, the fewer experienced new construction veterans will be around and the fewer domestic manufacturers will still be in the nuke business.  Do you really want to work at a plant labeled, "Made in China?"  Having first hand experience with receipt of Chinese materials and products, that possibility scares me.   
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HydroDave63 on Jul 30, 2009, 09:59
At least a few plants will be operating when eighty years old...

No Rx vessel has operated more than 40 years, and even with extension won't exceed 60 years. Annealing would likely be required past that point due to fast neutron embrittlement.

Some European experience on this topic is found here (http://ec-cnd.net/eudecom/eudecomprj_br3.php)

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Adam Grundleger on Jul 31, 2009, 03:26
I know many of the components we source currently are foreign (German, French, Korean, Japanese), but many are of good quality.  It's the historically dishonest suppliers (China and much of Eastern Europe) that bother me.  Regarding Rx vessels, I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of new options (including annealing and changes to the regulations) to keep current plants operating. 

What about new construction personnel?  Almost all the people I've worked with with any new-con experience are pushing the retirement envelope and many others are fast approaching it.  There are a lot of unrecorded experiences that would be invaluable during the assembly of a new plant.  I've heard horror stories about the mistakes made in the '70s and '80s during the last go-around, and I'm in no hurry to repeat them.   True, the new designs are supposed to be simpler and more practical to assemble, but any misstep these days will be catastrophic to a new project.  The window to act before the construction workforce ages away and is restaffed with greenhorns is going to close soon. 

I really see a future of rolling blackouts and hundred year old plants pushing electrons if things don't turn around.  That or a new wave of coal plants, which nobody outside of a mining community wants. 
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Preciousblue1965 on Jul 31, 2009, 07:23
I know many of the components we source currently are foreign (German, French, Korean, Japanese), but many are of good quality.  It's the historically dishonest suppliers (China and much of Eastern Europe) that bother me.  Regarding Rx vessels, I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of new options (including annealing and changes to the regulations) to keep current plants operating. 

What about new construction personnel?  Almost all the people I've worked with with any new-con experience are pushing the retirement envelope and many others are fast approaching it.  There are a lot of unrecorded experiences that would be invaluable during the assembly of a new plant.  I've heard horror stories about the mistakes made in the '70s and '80s during the last go-around, and I'm in no hurry to repeat them.   True, the new designs are supposed to be simpler and more practical to assemble, but any misstep these days will be catastrophic to a new project.  The window to act before the construction workforce ages away and is restaffed with greenhorns is going to close soon. 

I really see a future of rolling blackouts and hundred year old plants pushing electrons if things don't turn around.  That or a new wave of coal plants, which nobody outside of a mining community wants. 

it is almost as if you work for a company that deals with new construction standards of nuclear power plants and the requirements for how stuff has to be built.  Amazing.  Oh and the autoclave company you left is missing you.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Adam Grundleger on Aug 01, 2009, 11:14
Yes, amazing.  There are a lot of shops in Atlanta missing me, but Wolf Creek sure is happy to see me.  Just in time for the workup prior to the fall outage, too. 

And, yes, codes and standards work gives a very different perspective on the situation.  It cuts a different cross section than almost any other role in this business.  An ANII is in no way important to plant operation, but almost every aspect of plant schedule affects how the inspection work goes down.  Between covering the material receipt, handling, welding, NDE, changes to the code and NRC NUREGs, etc., there's a whole different view than from a supplier shop or from the plant personnel.  Not better, just different.     

The point I was trying to make is that if the utilities don't find a way to get off the fence and break ground while there are still Americans in the nuclear manufacturing and assembly business then we as an industry either will need to reinvent our manufacturing and assembly ability or outsource the whole darn thing.  It's bad enough looking at material certifications written half in pictographs.  The first time I see welding documents written that way will be the last.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: withroaj on Aug 02, 2009, 10:36
...

Once it becomes less fashionable to push the fallacy of wind/solar/biomass/nonsense, there will be only a couple of options left: nuke, coal, or gas. 

...

I don't think we'll actually turn to nuclear power as a mainstay until we run out of butterflies and baby dreams to Repowe (http://www.wecansolveit.org/)r America.  :P

By the way, good to hear you've been successful post-Navy.  I envy people of your intelligence and adaptability.  L-ville y'all.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: withroaj on Aug 03, 2009, 09:35
That day is still far off.... you can see the brand new wind farm Duke is building west of Cheyenne, WY, "green" stimulus money included....with the turbines made by SUZLON in India  >:(

I've got some family friends cashing in on those WY wind farms near Elk Mountain (turns out thousands of acres of windswept cow pasture can be put to use for more than shooting prairie dogs and coyotes) and in my recent road trip to Iowa I saw a few hefty wind farms out in the corn and soybean fields.  Wyoming certainly has plenty of open, windy space to hold tons of wind turbines; and I'd love to buy some land in/around the Saratoga (WY, not NY) hobo pool area just in case geothermal takes off.

I still think that you can't beat nuclear when it comes to MWe/acre.  For example:  Horse Hollow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Hollow_Wind_Energy_Center) vs Turkey Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station) (I think I used these two stations in support of this same argument last year, so I figured it'd save me some poking around).
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: SSBN640Blue on Aug 04, 2009, 04:42
Everything you want to know about new nukes is on the NRC website here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html
The yellow box on the left of the page has good charts and maps.

Everything you want to know about License Renewal and Power Up Rate is on NRC website here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/ql-reactors.html
Scroll down to the LICENSING section in the table.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: ddm502001 on Jan 01, 2010, 12:04
I was out in Washington State last fall, saw the big wind farm outside of Ellensburg but that power can't come to the NE or make much difference to the midwest as it is being used locally.  Wind farms are arising in Iowa and Nebraska but the immense area they need for a few hundred mw is astounding as is the maintenance on these marvels, I have heard they leak lubricants everywhere requiring monthly shutdowns for inspection; a large station of a few hundred units could be a high dollar fiasco.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: ddm502001 on Jan 01, 2010, 12:18
I wanted to add, our second unit at Callaway seems to be done, that is it won't be coming to fruition.  The company has decided the power is not currently needed and they have stopped all work on the COLA selling the large forgings back to Areva.  There is hope among the managers that Unistar will pick up where Ameren has dropped out but that seems unlikely.

With the loss of so much manufacturing in the US we may be revisiting the decline of nuke of the 80's.  There is just too little funds available to build these multi-billion dollar monsters.  With that there is now the specter of carbon cap & trade, the loss of major dirt burners along with canceled nukes may mean more rolling black/brown outs.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Content1 on Jan 01, 2010, 12:32
When people find themselves cold (global warming hoax) and in the dark from brownouts and taxed to death (literally, death taxes end this year but comes back with a vengeance as the Bush tax cuts expire) and capped and traded taxes start in the Nuclear Option may suddenly look better.  One can only hope at this time the current bunch of left wingers will be voted out this year before the next successful terrorist attack and before our economy collapses.   Start buying your gold and silver, it may be the only currency of value the government cannot print on demand.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: drayer54 on Mar 14, 2011, 07:31
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-nrg-nuclear-idUSTRE72D7VH20110314

I was afraid of stories and press like this to follow. I think we need to get a nuclear lobbying agency to fly Charlie Sheen to Libya and get him to throw some rocks with the rest of them...
Also, hire Lindsey Lohan to do something... anything really..
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: navynukedoc on Mar 24, 2011, 02:09
It looks like we have someone in the upper ranks gunning for our side through all this mess.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/chu-says-u-s-doesn-t-need-to-suspend-new-nuclear-plant-permits.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-15/chu-says-u-s-doesn-t-need-to-suspend-new-nuclear-plant-permits.html)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Shayne on Mar 25, 2011, 05:32
Feds approve Vogtle go-ahead
http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-03-25/nrc-gives-vogtle-go-ahead?v=1301067145
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: tritiumgun on Aug 11, 2011, 02:16
from what i gathered as of yesterdays local news press its probly looking like wb2 will be 2013 at the earliest.. which isnt no shocker..and bellfonte is still up in the air til next weeks meeting. and i dont think it will be easy on them to get it up and running like they think it will be.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: drayer54 on Aug 15, 2011, 09:15
I got this in my ANS newsletter. Interesting speech from John W. Rowe, the CEO of Exelon. His take on the future of nuclear and some of the issues going forward.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Aug 16, 2011, 12:34
I got this in my ANS newsletter. Interesting speech from John W. Rowe, the CEO of Exelon. His take on the future of nuclear and some of the issues going forward.

Thanks fro the file.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: wingnut on Sep 16, 2011, 11:57
AREVA snags Bellefonte job. Gets going after WBN2 is running--at least thats the current wisdom here in TN.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Gamma Glue on Feb 09, 2012, 03:49
Congratulations Vogtle 3 and 4 on the COL!
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2012/12-013.pdf (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2012/12-013.pdf)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: OldHP 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!
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Higgs on Feb 09, 2012, 06:27
Congrats! Too bad they low balled me. :)

I have my eye on the proposed units in Idaho.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Fermi2 on Feb 09, 2012, 06:52
The Units in Idaho will never happen.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Higgs 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
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: drayer54 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: OldHP 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!
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: wlrun3@aol.com 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.




Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: tagline 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: matthew.b 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Starkist 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
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack 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]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: wingnut 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Gamma Glue 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: thehpgreg 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: matthew.b 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: matthew.b 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Gamma Glue 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 (http://www.northescambia.com/?p=8787)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HydroDave63 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?
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: OldHP 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!
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: chuckdhuff on Jul 11, 2012, 11:18
A good read, if your in to that sort of thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-new-nuclear-plants-are-costing-billions-more-than-expected-2012-7#ixzz20KFlAqDr (http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-new-nuclear-plants-are-costing-billions-more-than-expected-2012-7#ixzz20KFlAqDr)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HydroDave63 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 (http://capitolconnection.net/capcon/ferc/061512/fercarchive_wmv.htm)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: chuckdhuff 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]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: drayer54 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Crusher 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.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Gamecock on Oct 08, 2012, 01:40
http://dms.psc.sc.gov/dockets/dockets.cfc?Method=DocketDetail&DocketID=114122 (http://dms.psc.sc.gov/dockets/dockets.cfc?Method=DocketDetail&DocketID=114122)

http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/04/2467840/sceg-critics-debate-who-funds.html (http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/04/2467840/sceg-critics-debate-who-funds.html)

Several articles in SC newspapers on the proposed new nuclear reactors outside of Columbia.....might not be a done deal that they will be built. :(

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HydroDave63 on Oct 08, 2012, 03:31
Not with nat gas solidly below $4/MMBtu.

If we roll the tape back a few years, it was rising gas and coal prices coming out of the 01-03 recession, that made nuclear attractive by 2006 or so. Thus, more ruminations of a Nuclear Renaissance that had folks using the phrase in print and conversation by 2006-07.

http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,8367.0.html (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,8367.0.html)

Our problem is, that with waiting for bean counters and focus groups and the right party to hold Congress and/or White House, it is like trying to steer a fully laden container ship, taking many many miles and much time to make the course change such that it doesn't wreck the business model.

I'll bet a B&G breakfast the new builds end with Vogtle 3&4, and Watts Bar 2. We have shoddy rebar and excess corporate overheads to thank for the cost overruns that dampened the forward momentum.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: NukeLDO on Oct 08, 2012, 04:40
Until America wakes up and realizes the true cost of that "cheap" natural gas extracted by fracking, I think the southern plants currently under construction are the end of that line of nuclear renaissance thought.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: ddm502001 on Nov 22, 2012, 09:10
By the news yesterday B&W got the research grant money to continue with the mPower design, only $60 million so it won't last long and far from the promised $452M the DOE threw out as a carrot last spring.  The Westinghouse SMR design has been setback with no funding so it is probably dead along with the Enperion and I don't remember the other SMR design.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on Nov 22, 2012, 09:44
Until America wakes up and realizes the true cost of that "cheap" natural gas extracted by fracking,.....

I disagree,...

There are better alternatives to the "cocktail" fracking initiated in the WW2 era,...

Anything that gets us out of the Crescent Moon backyard is better than the last forty years,...

.... I think the southern plants currently under construction are the end of that line of nuclear renaissance thought.

I agree,....
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on Jun 26, 2013, 10:03
The COL applications suggest that the floodgates are firmly intact.

As of now we have 100 power reactors committed to putting power on the grid, which makes the stats too easy to pass up:

Licensed in 1960's   2
Licensed in 1970's   49
Licensed in 1980's   44
Licensed in 1990's   5

Nothing has been licensed in the last 17 years,...

Only 8%+ of the current power reactors have been licensed in the last 25 years including 2013 which is half over and nothing is getting licensed this year.

Compare that to the stat that 91%+ of all the current reactors were put on the grid in the smaller 20 year period from 1970 to 1990,...

And now Yucca or any alternatives is done and gone,...

On September 28, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175). The act continues appropriations until March 27, 2013, for
Energy and Water Development programs at 0.612% above the FY2012-enacted levels, with
several exceptions. On March 26, 2013, the President signed H.R. 933, the FY2013 Defense and
Military Construction/VA, Full Year Continuing Resolution (P.L. 113-6). The act funds Energy
and Water Development accounts at the FY2012 enacted level for the rest of FY2013, with some
exceptions, and subject to the sequestration requirements of the Budget Control Act which went
into effect March 1, 2013.
In addition, issues specific to Energy and Water Development programs included
• the distribution of appropriations for Corps (Title I) and Reclamation (Title II)
projects that have historically received congressional appropriations above
Administration requests;
• alternatives to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, which the Administration has abandoned (Title III: Nuclear Waste
Disposal);
and
• proposed FY2013 spending levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) programs (Title III) that are 25% higher


www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42498.pdf

Indigenous fuel manufacturing capacity is not booming,...

U.S. Moves to Abandon Costly Reactor Fuel Plant

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/us-moves-to-abandon-costly-reactor-fuel-plant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Paducah uranium plant to close at month's end; 1,100 jobs lost

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130524/NEWS01/305240064/Paducah-uranium-plant-close-month-s-end?gcheck=1&goback=%2Egde_2530360_member_244723506&nclick_check=1

Not to mention the Final Rules due in 2016 which may give any business pause when being served notice they have a 300 year liability:

...The staff considers a timeframe of up to 300 years of storage to be appropriate for
characterization and prediction of aging effects and aging management issues for EST. The
staff may adjust this analytical period based on the expanded gap assessment results, expected
in 2012, which will identify technical and regulatory needs to support the development of an EST
framework and WC update...


http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1102/ML110260244.pdf

Where the years 1991 - 2000 were decline, and 2001 - 2008 were stagnant, the years 2009 - 2016 are nails in the coffin,...

No Renaissance, more like life support with progressive euthanasia already planned and in the books,...

I'm just saying,... [coffee]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: DSO on Jun 26, 2013, 03:10
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/business/energy-environment/nuclear-powers-future-may-hinge-on-georgia-project.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Doesn't look promising
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Marlin on Jun 26, 2013, 05:03
   I heard from someone working at Bellefonte that the closure of Paducah enrichment facility has lowered the electrical demand and may mean shut down of the plant. This article seems to confirm it.

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2013/06/13/tva-to-cut-budget_2c00_-jobs-at-bellefonte-reactor-project-061302.aspx
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Higgs on Jun 26, 2013, 05:09
I'm glad I'm working at a plant that will run until I retire.

I have been prospected by the new enrichment facility in NM.

I'm not sure I would consider a job there stable.

Justin
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: cheme09 on Jun 27, 2013, 08:59
I'm glad I'm working at a plant that will run until I retire.

Me and my buddy have talked about this before.  Even though our plant's licence will expire more than 20 years from now, given the events of Crystal River and SONGS, the plant could shut down at anytime if there's some type of repair that requires exorbitant expenses.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Higgs on Jun 27, 2013, 11:13
Me and my buddy have talked about this before.  Even though our plant's licence will expire more than 20 years from now, given the events of Crystal River and SONGS, the plant could shut down at anytime if there's some type of repair that requires exorbitant expenses.

That is true. My company can't afford to lose my plant, so we get the money needed to keep it running well. Of course, there's always the unforeseen, but in general, I feel pretty safe that unless the price of nuclear severely tanks, they'll keep us running until end of life.


Our sister plants are Davis Besse and Perry..., so you can begin to see why Beaver Valley is the crown jewel. ;D

Speaking of CR and SONGS, we've scooped up around 10 ROs from those two plants to put into our first ever "direct RO" class.

Justin
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: fiveeleven on Jun 29, 2013, 09:20
There is a plant in the midwest that last October was an industry top quartile performer and the top performer in the fleet by far. Millions spent on  performance enhancements / upgrades for both the humans and the equipment, and a license good to 2033. 300 miles across the state those same millions are being spent on 2 plants with the intent of running them into the next decade and beyond. Current status of the aforementioned plant: Tave at ambient, Tstm at ambient, PZR. pressure 14.7 psig, RCP oil in drums, relative value of the plant is current value of scrap metal. Who da thunk it.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HydroDave63 on Jun 29, 2013, 09:51
There is a plant in the midwest that last October was an industry top quartile performer and the top performer in the fleet by far. Millions spent on  performance enhancements / upgrades for both the humans and the equipment, and a license good to 2033. 300 miles across the state those same millions are being spent on 2 plants with the intent of running them into the next decade and beyond. Current status of the aforementioned plant: Tave at ambient, Tstm at ambient, PZR. pressure 14.7 psig, RCP oil in drums, relative value of the plant is current value of scrap metal. Who da thunk it.

It is one of the weaknesses of human nature, not appreciating what they had until it is gone.

Epic heat in the Southwest this week, prices went north of $100/MWh at the SONGS node, only coastal breezes saving SoCal from the same heat

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: chuckdhuff on Jul 03, 2013, 12:50
Another Vogtle Reactor Deadline Passes: Taxpayer Advocates Warn Government Keeps Pushing Bad Deal That Wall Street Won't Touch

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539732/another-vogtle-reactor-deadline.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: BetaAnt on Aug 06, 2013, 10:55
This is an interesting paper. Fracking could end up killing the nuclear industry.

Renaissance in Reverse: Competition Pushes Aging U.S. Nuclear Reactors to the Brink of Economic Abandonment

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/News/Senior_Energy_Fellows_Report_Cited_in_News_Outlets.htm?goback=%2Egde_146596_member_263039889 (http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/News/Senior_Energy_Fellows_Report_Cited_in_News_Outlets.htm?goback=%2Egde_146596_member_263039889)

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Aug 06, 2013, 11:48
This guy has become the new Arnie Gunderson, only from a financial approach to the industry.  EVERYTHING this guy writes is structured to be anti-nuclear, hidden behind the veil of economics.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: milo124 on Aug 06, 2013, 12:21
This guy has become the new Arnie Gunderson, only from a financial approach to the industry.  EVERYTHING this guy writes is structured to be anti-nuclear, hidden behind the veil of economics.

That may be true but he makes a pretty strong argument and money talks volumes.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Contract SRO on Aug 06, 2013, 12:58
That may be true but he makes a pretty strong argument and money talks volumes.

You are correct about the money talking.  The problem with that thought alone assumes that the cost will always remain as it is today.  Utilities have to be looking at the future.  I was once told by a stock broker that utilities that do not have a 5, 10, 15, 25 and 50 year plan will not be successful longterm.

I do not know if that is perfectly correct but I do know that they are looking at the possibilities much further in the future than most media and consumer advocates are.  The cost of natural gas will not stay at the low prices of todays market and when it begins to escalate the same people that were complaining about the cost of nuclear power plant construction will be the same people complaining about the short sightedness of the utilities for not planning nuclear plant construction so that it would be available when the gas becomes the leading factor in the much higher cost of electricity.


It doesn't require much common sense and understanding of human nature to look backwards for your policies for the future.  But with that approach the future will be much more costly than most can endure.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on Aug 06, 2013, 01:59
....It doesn't require much common sense and understanding of human nature to look backwards for your policies for the future.  But with that approach the future will be much more costly than most can endure.

Assuredly so, and looking backwards shows us that without an acceptable garbage dump, nuclear's 10,000 year half lives (300+ for death dose considerations) wipes out any corporations 50 year liability contingency plan,...

The country is not even 300 years old and the list of "world powers" that have come and gone for the last 300 years indicates something better than pigeon holed ISFSIs in the great wooded backwaters is needed for going forward,...

almost forgot,... [coffee]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Aug 06, 2013, 11:13
One key point not touched on by "experts" like Mark Cooper are the current construction projects of major natural gas pipelines moving from the deposit fields to the coast.  Within the next 3 - 5 years those pipelines will be completed and the US will stand on the edge of becoming the largest net exporter of liquid natural gas to the rest of the world.

If anyone thinks the companies that own the drilling rights to those fields is going to maintain the price of gas low as a favor to the US is in serious need of a drug screening.  The price will suddenly be a major market commodity; the demand from Europe alone could triple or quadruple the current price.  That will signal the point that milo124 is talking about.

Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: chuckdhuff on Aug 07, 2013, 02:12
If anyone thinks the companies that own the drilling rights to those fields is going to maintain the price of gas low as a favor to the US is in serious need of a drug screening. 

Funny and true. +K
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on May 15, 2014, 02:13
http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=7724&Florida_Governor_Approves_New _Nuclear_Reactors_at_FPL%3Fs_Turkey_Point_Power_Plant (http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=7724&Florida_Governor_Approves_New_Nuclear_Reactors_at_FPL%3Fs_Turkey_Point_Power_Plant)

Quote
Florida Governor Approves New Nuclear Reactors at FPL's Turkey Point Power Plant

May 15, 2015

The Governor of Florida and the State Cabinet approved the request from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) to install two new nuclear reactors at the company's Turkey Point Plant, located approximately 25 miles south of Miami, Florida. The project approved includes nearly 90 miles of transmission lines in Miami-Dade County. The approval is an important step forward to provide FPL the option to construct the non-carbon emitting reactors.

FPL continues to seek approval for the site, construction and operation from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). FPL submitted its application to the NRC for a combined license (COL) for two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) in June 2009.

FPL has not decided to construct the two, 1,100-MW reactors, and the operational dates for the reactors would likely not be until approximately 2022 and 2023.

The existing Turkey Point Plant includes two natural gas/oil conventional steam units (Units 1 and 2), two nuclear units (Units 3 and 4), one combined cycle natural gas unit (Unit 5), and nine small diesel generators.[/size]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Jun 03, 2014, 09:31
Latest milestone for us here at VC Summer.  Enjoy the pics!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Jun 03, 2014, 12:34
Latest milestone for us here at VC Summer.  Enjoy the pics!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/)

Thanks.  Those are fantastic Pictures.

(You can also upload them to our photo gallery, if you like)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on May 27, 2015, 01:54

"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

Is WB2 going to load fuel within the next 34 days?
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Content1 on May 27, 2015, 02:06
That is the beauty of capitalism.  People come and go, but if the demand for workers go up and pay is raised to attract people, they will come.  The machine will keep running even if not with the current bunch of workers.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on Jul 03, 2015, 09:28

Not to mention the Final Rules due in 2016 which may give any business pause w...hen being served notice they have a 300 year liability:

...The staff considers a timeframe of up to 300 years of storage to be appropriate for
characterization and prediction of aging effects and aging management issues for EST. The
staff may adjust this analytical period based on the expanded gap assessment results, expected
in 2012, which will identify technical and regulatory needs to support the development of an EST
framework and WC update...


http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1102/ML110260244.pdf

Where the years 1991 - 2000 were decline, and 2001 - 2008 were stagnant, the years 2009 - 2016 are nails in the coffin,...

No Renaissance, more like life support with progressive euthanasia already planned and in the books,...

I'm just saying,... [coffee]

and yet, the patient keeps fighting for breath:

Holtec Partners with ELEA, LLC in New Mexico to Build Consolidated Interim Storage Facility

http://www.holtecinternational.com/2015/04/holtec-partners-with-elea-llc-in-new-mexico-to-build-consolidated-interim-storage-facility/

New Mexico Joins Race to Build Storage for Nuclear Waste

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/29/new-mexico-joins-race-to-build-storage-for-nuclear/?page=all

...Holtec officials say the company expects to apply for a permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within a year. State permits would also be required. Licensing could take three years.

“It’s a tough road to get any nuclear project off the ground, otherwise we would have repositories and interim storage facilities all over the country,” Heaton said. “We have great partners and the will to get it done.”....


seems Skull Valley started a similar process in 1998, only to have the coffin nails driven home in 2012,...

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/12/22/pfs-pulls-the-plug-on-parking-lot-dump-targeted-at-skull-val.html

watch and see, watch and see,... [coffee]
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Jul 24, 2015, 09:55
Latest milestone accomplished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlV6Ehsodg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlV6Ehsodg&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Jul 24, 2015, 10:32
Latest milestone accomplished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlV6Ehsodg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlV6Ehsodg&feature=youtu.be)


Nice video.  Thank you for sharing.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: SloGlo on Jul 24, 2015, 02:49
this vid makes it look sew easy!  8)
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: GLW on Oct 22, 2015, 11:33
So, I'm gonna post this in three places because something has happened which has not happened since nukeworker.com was launched on the internet,...

An operating license has been granted to a commercial nuclear power plant in the US of A.

So, here's a quick set of numbers to let sink in,....

Licensed and Shuttered Synopsis                  
                  
Licensed in 1950's      3       Shuttered in 1950's   0      
Licensed in 1960's      19      Shuttered in 1960's   7      
Licensed in 1970's      59      Shuttered in 1970's   7      
Licensed in 1980's      47      Shuttered in 1980's   6      
Licensed in 1990's      5       Shuttered in 1990's   9      
Licensed in 2000's      0       Shuttered in 2000's   0      
Licensed in 2010's      1       Shuttered in 2010's   5   
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: hamsamich on Apr 29, 2016, 08:49
Someone is putting skin in the game.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dominion-makes-case-for-moving-forward-on-nuclear/2016/04/29/4b10640c-0e43-11e6-bc53-db634ca94a2a_story.html
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Apr 29, 2016, 09:34
$19 billion?  Seems dubious.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: hamsamich on Apr 29, 2016, 11:05
yeah but they are spending quite a bit of money to set up the possibility, not the 19 billion, but the hundreds of millions to even investigate.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Aug 31, 2016, 10:22
Latest milestone

&index=1
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Aug 31, 2016, 10:25
Photo album for the project

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Marlin on Aug 31, 2016, 11:20
Photo album for the project

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/

That's a lot of pictures, thanks. There a few interesting complicated crane lifts that would give DOE reps ulcers. I watched a demolition that cut a large utility bridge away from an active building attached to the demo. When the final cut was done I did not see it move until the crane lifted it away, pretty amazing The DOE facility rep was expecting the worst and was visibly nervous until the lift started.
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: Rennhack on Aug 31, 2016, 09:51
Photo album for the project

https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/sets/72157629244341909/

That's fantastic, you should upload some of those to our photo gallery.

https://www.nukeworker.com/pictures/upload.php
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: HeavyD on Dec 19, 2016, 12:43
Latest video from our project.

&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: MrHazmat on Dec 20, 2016, 07:04
My oldest son is a crane operator there, he wants to learn to run the Big one so bad !!!!! ;D
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: chuckdhuff on Jun 15, 2017, 03:52
Status as I understand it:


Vogtle 3 & 4 - Issued 2/10/2012 - Under construction


Summer 2 & 3 - Issued 3/30/2012 - Under construction CANCELED


Fermi 3 - Issued 5/1/2015 - No timeline for construction


STP 3 & 4 - Issued 2/12/2016 - No timeline for construction


Levy 1 & 2 - Issued 10/26/2016 - No timeline for construction


Lee 1& 2 - Issued 12/19/2016 - No timeline for construction


North Anna 3 - Issued 5/31/2017 - No timeline for construction


Turkey Point 6 & 7 - Under review - only license still under review
Title: Re: New Nuclear Plants Status
Post by: hamsamich on Jul 28, 2019, 02:04
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-28/eastern-europe-s-love-affair-with-nuclear-is-hitting-the-rocks

not a U.S. snapshot, but fairly balanced article of nuclear power in Eastern Europe...expensive, but still in their hearts.  some updates as well of how far along new reactors are in different countries.