nuclear-news

Worrying questions on the real costs of Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant

State monitor warns on Ga. nuclear plant costs, seattle pi By RAY HENRY, Associated Press, December 7, 2014 TLANTA (AP) — Public watchdogs are giving Southern Co. a between-the-lines warning that building a multibillion-dollar nuclear plant in Georgia without a detailed construction schedule could trigger financial penalties.

That warning came in a report filed by a nuclear engineer and an analyst who work for state regulators and monitor the construction of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia.

The Public Service Commission has warned for at least two years that Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power is relying on an outdated project schedule that contains almost no detail after December 2015, even though construction will continue for several more years.

Nuclear engineer William Jacobs Jr. and financial analyst Steven Roetger said building a complex, first-of-its-kind project without a schedule was unreasonable. “In fact it runs counter to any prudent project management, nuclear or otherwise,” goes against the project’s construction agreement and an industry group’s own recommendations for construction, Jacobs and Roetger wrote in a semi-annual report.

That keyword — “prudent” — was meant to catch the ears of Southern Co. executives.

By law, the Public Service Commission can prevent Georgia Power, a regulated monopoly, from billing its customers for any construction costs the commission decides are the result of “imprudence.”

The state’s elected utility regulators have agreed to delay any final decisions on construction costs until after the first reactor is finished, likely in late 2017 at the earliest. However, the latest filing shows the commission’s staffers are laying the legal groundwork that could be used in future arguments to prevent customers from paying some of Georgia Power’s costs……….

Georgia Power’s budget estimate does not reflect the potential costs of resolving a roughly $1 billion lawsuit between the plant’s builders and its owners over previous delays and design changes. While Georgia Power has denied any responsibility for those extra costs, company leaders have said they would consider a settlement if it made financial sense.

Follow Ray Henry on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rhenryAP. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/energy/article/State-monitor-warns-on-Ga-nuclear-plant-costs-5941198.php

December 8, 2014 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Utilities should avoid the high risk investments of new coal and nuclear power stations

We Must Discourage Electric Utilities from Making High-Risk Investments Green Energy Institute, 24 Nov 14, By Amelia Schlusser, Staff Attorney

Ceres recently issued an update of its 2012 report, Practicing Risk-Aware Electricity Regulation. The updated report concludes that large fossil fuel and nuclear power plants are the riskiest investments for utilities, and that renewable energy, distributed generation, and energy efficiency are lower-risk investments with potentially lower price tags than baseload alternatives.

According to Ceres, these relative investment risks are driven in part by recent developments in the U.S. electricity sector. Notably, the EPA is poised to regulate carbon emissions from new and existing power plants in the near future. In addition, renewable energy costs have decreased significantly in recent years, and some renewable technologies are either approaching or have already become cost-competitive with fossil fuel resources. Impending carbon regulations and increased deployment of distributed generation and energy efficiency are placing added pressure on entrenched utility business models, and, as GEI’s Nate Larsen recently discussed, regulators are beginning to explore strategies to modernize the grid.

Renewable energy resources such as onshore wind and solar PV are insulated from risks associated with fuel price volatility and emissions regulations, and the levelized costs of these resources are on par or below the levelized costs of fossil fuel resources. Nevertheless, many utility integrated resource plans continue to identify renewables as higher cost, higher risk resource options……….

A carbon emissions allowance program that places a premium on renewable energy generation is one potential strategy to deter investments in high-risk fossil fuel resources, but it is by no means the only available strategy. State public utility commissions should consider revising their resource planning and procurement rules to send a clear message to utilities that investments in baseload fossil fuel plants are not prudent and that zero-emitting resources are in the public interest.

Ratepayer advocates should closely monitor levelized cost projections and oppose investments in resources that are vulnerable to long-term cost increases. And finally, policymakers should ensure that applicable legal and policy frameworks incentivize energy infrastructure development that mitigates ratepayer and taxpayer vulnerability to risk over extended timeframes. Infrastructure constructed today will likely operate for multiple decades, and it is imperative that we discourage investments that will lock-in exposure to rising costs and environmental degradation for years to come. http://greenenergyinstitute.blogspot.com.au/

November 26, 2014 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear power plant Vogtle in Georgia – more delays

Plant Vogtle expansion falling further behind schedule, construction monitor reports The Augusta Chroncle, 24 Nov 14, By Meg Mirshak

November 26, 2014 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Demolition begins of massive uranium enrichment facility

Demolition of Uranium Facility, Once the Largest Building in U.S.http://www.rbaker.com/press-room.php?id=215&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Tue November 25, 2014, When the K-25 uranium enrichment facility was built in the mid-1940s as part of the Manhattan Project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, it was the world’s largest building under one roof. Seventy years later, demolition of the enormous forty-four acre building was completed after a five-year project.

K-25 was commissioned by the U.S. government during World War II as part of the top-secret race to build the world’s first atomic bomb. Within the walls of the half-mile-long, 2 million square foot U-shaped facility, 12,000 workers produced, via gaseous diffusion, the enriched uranium that was used in atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. Following the war, K-25 remained in operation producing enriched uranium for defense and commercial purposes until it was shut down in 1964. Other buildings at the Oak Ridge facility continued producing uranium until 1987.

Though demolition contractors began taking down the K-25 building in 2008, the complex project was ten years in the making. Due to the hazardous nature of the uranium operation, extensive preparation and remediation were required before demolition could commence. Among numerous Radioactive sludge was removed from a series of underground gunite tanks in 1999, and an onsite waste processing facility was built in 2003 to accept contaminated waste generated during site cleanup. Depleted uranium cylinders were shipped, more than 47,000 tons of metal was removed, several other buildings were demolished, and roads were constructed to accommodate vehicles removing project debris.

Demolition of K-25 was slated to last six years, from 2008 to 2014, but demolition contractors were able to complete the project one year ahead of schedule and approximately $300 million under its original $2.2 billion budget.

November 26, 2014 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment