Rumors circulating in the nuclear industry January 16 were neither confirmed nor denied by the companies involved. Southern has selected the Westinghouse AP1000 for two possible new units at its Vogtle site in Georgia, and Southern and Westinghouse are in discussions over contract costs. One source said that Southern had a press release written, saying the company could abort plans to apply for a combined construction permit-operating license, or COL, but did not distribute it. The COL application is slated to be filed in March, and an NRC spokesman said January 16 that Southern had not notified the agency of any change in plans. Southern spokeswoman Beth Thomas declined to comment, saying only that Southern was considering its options and continuing talks with Westinghouse. Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert declined to comment other than to confirm that discussions with Southern about the AP1000 were continuing. Thomas said the company's efforts to obtain an early site permit, for which it applied in August 2006, were not affected by the Westinghouse discussions.
The last time utilities were building nukes the cost overruns almost bankrupted several of them. As much as I would like to see many more built they have to make sure the economics are right.
So, do you guys think they're trying to play hardball so they can negotiate a better contract price? Assumingly they would be implying tht they might switch to the EPR or USAPWR?
Quote from: McLovin #41 on Jan 20, 2008, 07:57
So, do you guys think they're trying to play hardball so they can negotiate a better contract price? Assumingly they would be implying tht they might switch to the EPR or USAPWR?
That was what I got out of it.
Quote from: McLovin #41 on Jan 20, 2008, 07:57
So, do you guys think they're trying to play hardball so they can negotiate a better contract price? Assumingly they would be implying tht they might switch to the EPR or USAPWR?
That sure sounds like their plan. I hope they do proceed with the AP1000, I think the design has a lot of promise. I have a buddy that worked on some of the design qualification work at Oregon State. I was a little skeptical of the design at first because it was so radically new, but he loaned me a copy of the FSAR, and looking through that convinced me the design has a lot of merit. BTW, the documents are now on the NRC website, save for expunging any drawings that show building layouts.
Quote from: grantime on Jan 19, 2008, 03:30
The last time utilities were building nukes the cost overruns almost bankrupted several of them. As much as I would like to see many more built they have to make sure the economics are right.
Yeah, the price numbers are starting to look real scary. Cement is up 30%, steel is up 60%, and copper is up 400%. Labor is real hard to come by for any skilled trades and engineering. All that doesn't bode real well for any new power plants, regardless of type.
Wind takes more steel, concrete and copper and labor per unit of power than nuclear so competition looks good there.
Coal is about the same. Coal also faces stiff political opposition, dare I say worse than nuclear is facing.
The only real danger is continuing the stupidity of more natural gas plants. The raw material costs to build one are less, and the labor is less. Utilities scared by the capital cost just may opt that route, even though the long term cost is far higher.
I read somewhere, I think it was here but am not sure, that the IAEA stated that the only new design that offers any substantial safety benefit over current (Gen II/III) designs is the EPR from Areva. Any chance they are trying to capitalize on that little bit of good news for Areva?
Quote from: McLovin #41 on Jan 25, 2008, 01:17
I read somewhere, I think it was here but am not sure, that the IAEA stated that the only new design that offers any substantial safety benefit over current (Gen II/III) designs is the EPR from Areva. Any chance they are trying to capitalize on that little bit of good news for Areva?
Considering my disdain for the UN, I have a hard time accepting anything the IAEA has to say at face value.
Looks like Southern Company is not the only one to back out. Scana(VC Summer) has concerns about raising cost
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKN2556518620080125?rpc=44
whooo cares watt southern duz???
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/12/duke-files-for-two-units-with-nrc.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/12/second-nuclear-plant-proposed-for-idaho.html
items 4,13,14,20, et al @
http://www.nucpros.com/?q=taxonomy/term/23