Back in June, 2022, the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors, not shown above, each 1.215 Gigawatts of nameplate capacity was pegged at $34 Billion, or $14 per watt, here.
$34 Billion would buy roughly 17 – 20 Gigawatts of wind capacity or 12 – 15 Gigawatts of solar capacity today.
Continue reading
Vogtle nuclear plants 3 and 4 are now forecast to cost a total of $34 Billion. $30.34 Billion (USNews and GPB), plus the $3.68 Billion Westinghouse paid to the owners in conjunction with it’s bankruptcy filing (GTTSI), that’s $34.02 Billion, $14 per watt.
Continue reading
Vogtle 3 and 4, the first new nuclear reactors built in the United States in 30 years, are now 6 years late and estimated to cost $28 billion. (Taxpayer.net). That is a cost overrun of $14 billion, 100% over the initial cost of $14 billion. (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Power).
| Rough Comparison of New Electricity Capacity Costs | ||
| Energy | Price per watt | Capacity for $12.5 B (GW) |
| Nuclear | $12.50 | 1.00 |
| Solar | $2.00 | 6.25 |
| Wind | $1.44 | 8.70 |
| Table 1 | ||
Exelon Corporation, citing costs and other issues, announced that it would close the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey, NJ, in October, 2018.
Alex Geecan, covering the story in the Asbury Park Press, here, quoted Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
“The NRC requires “that the decommissioning process for a nuclear power plant must be completed within 60 years.”
So after producing power for 50 years, the plant will be managed, guarded, and eventually dismantled, a process that may take as long as 60 years.
You might have seen this ad, from PSEG or on their website, “NJ Needs Nuclear . com”
“It’s Cheaper to Keep Air Pollution-Free Nuclear Power than to Replace It,” the ad claims. And that is true. It’s also cheaper to drive a 10, 15, or 20 year old car than replace with a new one. Instead of a monthly car payment you have maintenance payments – new tires every 8 years or every 80,000 miles, whichever comes first, annual engine tune-ups.
Ft Calhoun Plant – Arial View
The Fort Calhoun nuclear plant reopened in December, 2013. The plant, on the west bank of the Missouri River about 20 miles north of Omaha, Nebraska, closed for refueling in April, 2011, and was flooded in June, 2011. Refueling a nuclear plant typically takes about 6 – 12 weeks. Due to the flooding, the Fort Calhoun plant was closed for 970 days, from April, 2011 until December, 2013. (NY Times / Associated Press, here). Back in June, 2011, the cost estimate by David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, was roughly $970 Million in lost revenue, plus the costs of repairs. Continue reading
Fukushima Explosion, Courtesy Forbes
A lot of people have been talking about a new dawn of nuclear power (Telegraph, article from 2013 here). “Fukushima,” they say, perversely, “proves nuclear is safe because only 3 reactors melted down.” They also say, “a culture of safety can make or break nuclear power.” (Japan Times, op-ed, here).
I think these people are not asking the right questions.
For example, the melt-rate of Antarctic ice has double since before 2010, that is since before Fukushima. Andrew Freedman on Mashable, here, and Phil Plait, on Slate, here wrote about a scientific study, accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters which documents the increase in the rate at which Antarctic ice is melting. The study attributes this increased ice-melt-rate to rising ocean temperatures. The conventional wisdom is that “The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing ocean temperatures to rise.” But … what if this is only part of the problem?
What effect, if any, does the release of radiation from the Fukushima melt-down have on ocean temperature and therefore, the rate of melting ice?
Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Courtesy Exelon
A public hearing will take place October 28, 2013, at the Clarion Hotel, 815 Route 37 West, Toms River, NJ. The subject of the hearing will be the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, study on nuclear power plants and cancer and “Lessons Learned from Fukushima.”
As I see it, the most important lessons from Fukushima are:
There is a fifth lesson to be learned; this from the NJ Clean Energy Program in New Jersey and Vestas, the wind company. As noted on the NJ Clean Energy Program – Project Activity Pages, we in New Jersey now have have 1,117.5 Megawatts (MW) of grid tied photovoltaic solar electric generating capacity, almost double the 636 MW of Oyster Creek. Vestas is offering 8 MW wind turbines.
WE HAVE WIND and SOLAR: WE DON’T NEED OYSTER CREEK OR OTHER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
Offshore Wind Farm
The Fires of Fukushima
Back in the 1960’s Nuclear Power was pitched as “Too Cheap to Meter.” Today the state of the art can be summarized in 15 words:
Chernobyl, Fukushima, San Onofre, Fort Calhoun, Indian Point, Radioactive Waste, Evacuation Plans and Emergency Response. Continue reading
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station
Two Years Ago, April, 2011, the Fort Calhoun nuclear power station, on the banks of the Missouri River, north of Omaha, Nebraska, was shut down for refueling. It should have been a routine operation. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI.Org, here, “U.S. nuclear reactors shut down once every 18 to 24 months to refuel approximately one-third of the reactor. In the 1980s and early ’90s the average refueling outage lasted about three months. Over the past decade, refueling outage durations have improved substantially. Now a typical refueling outage lasts one month.” Clearly Fort Calhoun, shut down for refueling 28 months ago in April, 2011, is not typical. Continue reading
Fukushima
Jeff Hanson, spokesman for the Omaha Public Power District, OPPD, in discussing the Fort Calhoun reactor, closed since April, 2011 for refueling then, in June, 2011, due to flooding, said,
“[Nuclear power is] a reliable source of electricity that’s carbon-free. That becomes more valuable going forward,” OPPD spokesman Jeff Hanson said.
This assertion that nuclear power is “carbon free” or that it produces “no greenhouse gases” is based on a simplified view of one aspect of the nuclear power – fissioning uranium – and ignores the complete picture.
Fallout Map from Fukushima Disaster
While fissioning uranium does not release carbon dioxide, when we look at the entire fuel / waste cycle we see that getting uranium out of the ground, fashioning it into fuel rods, transporting the fuel rods to the plant and managing the waste requires energy, and much of this energy releases carbon dioxide.
Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Station, within the Missouri
The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant, (OPPD / NRC) 19 Miles from Omaha, Nebraska, was shut-down for refueling in April, 2011. Flooded by the Missouri River in June, 2011, the plant remains shut-down. It Will Be Two Years – 2 YEARS – In April!
The Omaha Public Power District, OPPD has raised rates 6.9% to finance a $143 million repair bill. This does not include the costs to the OPPD to purchase electricity that the plant would provide – which is 25% of the power that the OPPD needs on a daily basis.. This also does not include costs to replace teflon coated wiring – which disintegrates on exposure to high levels of radiation – and costs to repair some of the plant’s support structures. This also probably does not include the costs to the district for Excelon to run the plant for the next 20 years, reported on Jan. 28, 2013, by Kevin Cole, of Omaha.com, the Omaha World-Herald, (here),
“For the first year of management work, OPPD will pay Exelon between $20 million and $26.5 million.”
In a telephone interview with me, in August, 2011, David Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS, estimated the total cost of maintaining the plant and purchasing replacement electricity to be $1.0 million per day – roughly $600 million, to date.
By asking Exelon to run the plant, it looks like the OPPD has decided to keep the plant running. Similarly, by requiring the OPPD to do what needs to be done to bring the plant back up, it seems like the NRC has decided that this 50 year old and severely constrained nuclear power plant is worth bringing back on line. Who is asking whether or not this is a good idea? It seems to me that OPPD would be better off asking Warren Buffett, Omaha based head of Berkshire Hathaway how to manage their assets than asking Exelon to spend whatever it takes to “Bring this bad boy back on-line.”
The 16-module solar array pictured above was built in 2005. It probably has 2.5 Kilowatt (KW) to 2.8 KW of nameplate capacity. In New Jersey, residential solar systems range from 3 KW to 30 KW. Most are between 4 and 10 KW. Commercial systems range from 8KW to 200 KW. Utility scale systems are in the 10 Mega Watt (MW) to 550 MW range. In 2005, the costs for small scale residential systems were around $8.50 / watt, exclusive of any incentives. Today it is probably around half that, and cheaper for the larger utility scale systems. 1.0 MW system would require 4,000 modules of 250 watts each. The system pictured above requires about 50 square feet of land.As illustrated by the photo of the Topaz array, below, a 550 MW system, like Topaz, would require 2.2 million modules, and would cover a lot of ground.
First Solar, FSLR, a $2.8 Billion company, and Sunpower, SPWR, an $840 Million company, two of the pillars of what is left of the American solar energy industry, made some interesting statements in their 2011 annual reports: Continue reading
Hurricane Sandy, the 1,000 mile diameter storm brought rain, wind, water and power failures to 10.4 million from North Carolina up to Maine, and west to Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in the USA and another 145,000 people in Canada, over 1.5 million people. As NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said, here, “We have old infrastructure and new weather patterns… climate change is a reality, extreme weather is a reality, it is a reality that we are vulnerable.”
We need to build infrastructure that is more resistant to extreme storms, and resilient in the face of these kinds of storms.
Map showing people without power from Hurricane Sandy
Palisades Nuclear Plant, Lake Michegan
In A Return To ‘Safety First’ For Michigan Nuclear Plant, NPR correspondent Lindsey Smith reports,
The Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan had five unplanned shutdowns last year. It’s one of the area’s biggest employers, and its safety record is one of the worst in the country. Now it’s trying to prove to federal regulators that it can meet their standards.
On the shores of Lake Michigan, the Palisades Power Plant is tucked in between tall sand dunes in Covert Township, Mich., at the southern edge of Van Buren State Park. Kathy Wagaman, who heads the chamber of commerce in South Haven, 7 miles north of Palisades … said “They’ve been a very good neighbor” … “and I just feel confident that they’re taking good care of this.”
The title, however, says it all. “A RETURN to ‘Safety-First.’ Clearly, based on their record, safety has not been Entergy’s number one priority at Palisades. Marcy, at Empty Wheel, presents a first hand report on the tritium leak of Sept, 2011, here.