So, do you think they will ACTUALLY get a nuclear plant?
QuoteWestinghouse, Blue Castle sign two-unit AP1000 deal
By K. Steiner-Dicks on Aug 26, 2014
Westinghouse and Blue Castle Holdings have signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue the development of a two-unit AP1000® nuclear power plant at the Green River site in Utah.
Under the agreement, the companies will work together to develop a scope of activities for enabling the Blue Castle Project under a definitive agreement, including marketing, nuclear safety licensing, permitting, design, engineering, procurement, construction, installation, commissioning, start-up, testing, nuclear fuel, refuelling, operation and maintenance of the two-unit plant.
More than 2,500 jobs are expected to be created for construction of the two units and about 1,000 permanent, full-time employees will work at the plant during its 60-year operating life.
Eight AP1000 units are currently under construction worldwide: two each at the Vogtle and V.C. Summer sites in the U.S. and the Sanmen and Haiyang sites in China. In addition, shareholder agreements have been signed in the past few months for the development of AP1000 plants at the Moorside site in the United Kingdom and the Kozloduy site in Bulgaria.
- See more at: http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/supply-chain/westinghouse-blue-castle-sign-two-unit-ap1000-deal?utm_campaign=NEI%20Newsletter%2003SEPT14&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elq=e15cc10390944a7f810f5e47b1e65d1b&elqCampaignId=304#sthash.vPlIhsuM.dpuf
Some great fly fishing there. That is about it though.
LM
Quote from: Rennhack on Sep 03, 2014, 10:11
So, do you think they will ACTUALLY get a nuclear plant?
No, but only due to water usage issues for ultimate heat sink. Otherwise it would be a good location, both politically and electrically
Quote from: Marlin on Sep 03, 2014, 01:22
Did not stop Palo Verde
Palo Verde had a very large source of water nearby (treated sewage water from Phoenix) in sufficient quantity, and was planned during years with favorable hydrologic conditions. Three decades later and with a large bathtub ring around Hoover, all upstream usage of the Colorado River (the Green River is the main tributary) is hotly contested. I'm not saying it should not be licensed, I'm definitely for it, but water will be what makes or breaks this project.
Quote from: HydroDave63 on Sep 03, 2014, 01:37
Palo Verde had a very large source of water nearby (treated sewage water from Phoenix) in sufficient quantity, and was planned during years with favorable hydrologic conditions. Three decades later and with a large bathtub ring around Hoover, all upstream usage of the Colorado River (the Green River is the main tributary) is hotly contested. I'm not saying it should not be licensed, I'm definitely for it, but water will be what makes or breaks this project.
Somehow I think this would be the elephant in the room when siting the plant. I suspect that it has been considered.
Quote from: Marlin on Sep 03, 2014, 01:47
Somehow I think this would be the elephant in the room when siting the plant. I suspect that it has been considered.
This didn't take long to find.
http://bluecastleproject.com/faq.php?faq_id=3
and linked inside
http://bluecastleproject.com/files/fck_uploaded_files/BCP%20Economics%20and%20Water%20Use%20Rev%201b%202-7-11.pdf
Quote from: Marlin on Sep 03, 2014, 01:53
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.
Quote from: HydroDave63 on Sep 03, 2014, 10:01
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.
In school when you didn't know an answer did you write more than you thought the teacher had patience to read ;)
Quote from: Marlin on Sep 03, 2014, 10:28
In school when you didn't know an answer did you write more than you thought the teacher had patience to read ;)
It is how I squeaked through my nuke school Ac-boards.... O:)
Quote from: HydroDave63 on Sep 03, 2014, 10:01
It is a nice little executive summary,....
the 800 permanents is about right, maybe even a tad high,...
SONGS is a skewed management model,...
IMNSHO,... 8)
Quote from: Marlin on Sep 03, 2014, 10:28
In school when you didn't know an answer did you write more than you thought the teacher had patience to read ;)
It worked on me. Baffle them with BS. :)