HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Estimated cost of Florida...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun May 6, 2012, 04:45 PM

Estimated cost of Florida's Levy County Nuclear project now $19-24 billion

http://www.kpho.com/story/17998000/progress-energy-florida-files-annual-nuclear-cost-recovery-clause-projections-with-the-florida-public-service-commission

<snip>

If approved in its entirety, Progress Energy's total 2013 NCRC charge would be $5.09 on a 1,000-kilowatt-hour (kWh) residential bill beginning with January 2013 billing (compared to $2.86 in 2012). As a result of the previously announced, FPSC-approved rate settlement agreement between Progress Energy and consumer advocates, the portion of the NCRC charge related to the Levy County nuclear project will increase to $3.45 on a 1,000-kWh residential bill in 2013 (compared to the 2012 rate of $2.67) and will remain fixed through 2017. In addition, the utility has requested to adjust the Crystal River Nuclear Plant upgrade-related portion of the NCRC charge to $1.64 on a 1,000-kWh residential bill in 2013 (compared to $0.19 in 2012).

The Crystal River Nuclear Plant has been safely shut down since a delamination – or separation – was discovered within the wall of the plant's containment building during a scheduled maintenance outage in the fall of 2009. The company and outside experts are conducting a thorough and systematic engineering analysis and review and are assessing options to repair the containment building and return the plant to service in 2014.

Also included in the utility's filing are updates to the Levy County nuclear project schedule and cost. Due to lower-than-projected customer demand, the lingering economic slowdown, uncertainty regarding potential carbon regulation and current, low natural gas prices, the company is shifting the in-service date for the first Levy unit to 2024, with the second unit following 18 months later. The revised schedule is consistent with the approach the utility publicly discussed after announcing the recent rate settlement agreement. Although the scope and overnight cost for the Levy County nuclear project – including land acquisition, related transmission work and other required investments – remain essentially unchanged, the shift in schedule will increase escalation and carrying costs and raise the total estimated project cost to between $19 and $24 billion.

On April 27, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Based on its comprehensive review, the NRC has determined that there are no environmental impacts that would prevent the agency from issuing the combined operating license for the construction and operation of the proposed reactors. This is an important milestone for the project.

<snip>

6 replies, 2086 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Estimated cost of Florida's Levy County Nuclear project now $19-24 billion (Original post)
jpak May 2012 OP
jonthebru May 2012 #1
kristopher May 2012 #2
kristopher May 2012 #3
kristopher May 2012 #4
Gregorian May 2012 #5
kristopher May 2012 #6

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2012, 04:54 PM

1. LFTR

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonthebru (Reply #1)

Sun May 6, 2012, 04:55 PM

2. "Hype"

Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2012, 04:58 PM

3. Nuclear “Renaissance” Meets Economic Reality, But Who Gets the Bill?

Nuclear “Renaissance” Meets Economic Reality, But Who Gets the Bill?
By: Gregg Levine Friday February 24, 2012 10:15 am

Crystal River is back in the news. Regular readers will recall when last we visited Progress Energy Florida’s (PEF) troubled nuclear reactor it was, shall we say, hooked on crack:
The Crystal River story is long and sordid. The containment building cracked first during its construction in 1976. ...The latest problems started when Crystal River needed to replace the steam generator inside the containment building. Rather than use an engineering firm like Bechtel or SGT–the companies that had done the previous 34 such replacements in the US–Progress decided it would save a few bucks and do the job itself.

Over the objections of on-site workers....



Sara Barczak of CleanEnergy Footprints provides more detail on the last couple of years:
The Crystal River reactor has been plagued with problems ever since PEF self-managed a steam generation replacement project in September 2009. The replacement project was intended to last 3 months, until PEF informed the Commission that it had cracked the containment structure during the detensioning phase of the project. PEF subsequently announced that the CR3 reactor would be repaired and back in service by the 3rd quarter of 2010…then by the 4th quarter of 2010…and then by the first quarter of 2011. On March 15, 2011 PEF informed the Commission that it had cracked the reactor again during the retensioning process and subsequently told the Commission that it estimated repair costs of $1.3 billion and a return to service in 2014. Shortly thereafter, the Humpty Dumpty Crystal River reactor suffered yet another crack on July 26, 2011.



That July crack was later revealed to be 12-feet long and 4-feet wide–and here, at least when it came to notifying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “later” means much later. . . like four months later.

...


http://my.firedoglake.com/gregglevine/2012/02/24/nuclear-renaissance-meets-economic-reality-but-who-gets-the-bill/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2012, 05:03 PM

4. Some relevant backgound - Nuclear industry success story

The emphasis is on "industry" in "nuclear industry success story".
For those paying the tab? Not so much.

At $24B this 2.2gigawatt facility is a complete economic clusterf&*k for the consumer (original price was $14B), but an incredible success for the industry that has taken the consumer hostage with "advanced cost recovery". I mean seriously, slipping the date from 2016 to 2024 isn't a clue to someone that there is a problem here? There is an awful lot of carbon reduction the money spent on this plant could have produced by the time the plant comes online.

Progress Energy raises price tag, delays start date of Levy nuclear plant
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
Posted: May 01, 2012 09:53 AM


Progress Energy announced Tuesday that the cost for its proposed Levy County nuclear plant could reach a new high of $24 billion with a new start date of 2024.

The new estimate, included among documents filed with the state Public Service Commission for its annual nuclear cost recovery, would raise the cost of the project almost $2 billion and delay when it comes online from 2021 to 2024 — almost a decade after its original projected date of 2016.

...

Progress' proposal would increase the amount customers pay from the current $3.05 per 1,000 kilowatt hours of usage for advances fees for Levy and its existing Crystal River nuclear plant to $5.09 beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

....

"Nuclear power," Dolan said, "remains a key component of Progress Energy's balanced solution strategy to meet our customers' future energy needs with efficient, carbon-free electricity."***



http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energy-raises-price-tag-delays-start-date-of-levy-nuclear-plant/1227830

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Original post)

Sun May 6, 2012, 05:11 PM

5. A billion here and a billion there, and you're talking some serious renewable energy research.

Man, things sure are slow to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gregorian (Reply #5)

Sun May 6, 2012, 05:15 PM

6. We need renewable deployment.

Competition will take care of further research.

But you have the right idea...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread