Sumitomo Announces Program to Triple Production for Steam Generator Tubes for Nuclear Reactors.

[NNadir]

Sumitomo Metal Industries of Japan has announced a project to almost triple its production capacity at its Amagasaki plant for steel steam generator (SG) tubes for use in pressurized water reactors. The two other manufacturers of such tubing announced capacity increases last year.

The vast Amagasaki site (Image: Sumitomo Metals)
The company will invest some 14 billion yen ($150 million) to increase capacity at its Steel Tube Works in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, by some 2.7 times its actual production in fiscal 2008. The major areas of capacity expansion will include a cold working facility, a finishing facility and an inspection facility. Increased production is scheduled to start in April 2013.

The company claims that it has been receiving the bulk of orders for steam generator tubes to be used in third generation nuclear power plants, including those for two Westinghouse AP1000 units planned at the Vogtle site in Georgia, USA. Sumitomo Metals said, "We expect to continue receiving orders from the USA, China, South Korea and other countries for SG tubes to be manufactured in and after 2013, as our production schedule is tight up to 2012..."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Sumitomo_Metals_boosts_tube_output-1204105.html">Sumitomo Metals boosts tube output.

Recently I posted news about new forging capacity in Britain to make reactor cores.

Apparently the 1980 memo from genius Amory Lovins announcing that nuclear power is dead has still not made it to Britain or to Japan.

[kristopher]

1. Lovins was correct.

He was speaking of the nuclear industry as a viable economic "industry", not as a corporate welfare recipient.

[NNadir]

2. Actually the wind and solar industry would die tomorrow without corporate welfare and they don't

even work.

Like all anti-nukes, Lovins is not only ignorant, but he is also delusional.

Nuclear power is international and there is NOT one country with nuclear power that has electricity costs higher than those of Denmark. You seem to think that millions of nuclear professionals around the world get their info from the uninformed complaints of light weight bloggers.

Not true. These people, nuclear professionals, are scientists, not soothsayers.

Have a nice dogmatic chanting day.

[FBaggins]

3. Ridiculous

Power generation must involve significant government input (up to an including ownership in some cases). It isn't purely a free market activity.

If you were building a new suburb and decided to let independent corporations decide how much water/sewer/power/etc was needed in each area things would be a mess. These things must be centrally planned out years/decades in advance. You can call the construction of a new highway "corporate welfare" if you want, but it's just the state recognizing that infrastructure is needed there.

Such centralized planning necessarily involves government action... whether that's by command, or by "incentive" doesn't matter. Because of this, ALL significant new power generation is to some extent subsidized (call it "corporate welfare" if you like). If we go with cap and trade, that's a clear subsidy for some types of power generation and just as clear a penalty on others.

In short - you are (once again) dead wrong. Lovins knew that more OR less nuclear power would involve a government decision. He thought that we would now decide to get rid of nuclear. That "we the people" were finished with nuclear power.

He was (as you are) wrong.

[kristopher]

12. Corporate welfare is when the contracts are rigged against the public interest.

Government involvement in electric utilities is based on the too great accumulation of power inherent in a grid based on centralized thermal generation. (google electric natural monopoly) Nuclear is part of perpetuating that model.

Nuclear is the most expensive of all option for generating power, and the economics going into the future are only going to be worse.
New enewables are the ALL less expensive than new nuclear with the exception of solar PV, and that is on a strong downward trend that will only improve.

So subsidies for renewables are a way to an end goal of no subsidies. Nuclear subsidies are a rape of the taxpayer and the ratepayer with no promise of any new energy structure where price and health are ultimately improved.

Nuclear is "corporate welfare" in every sense.

[FBaggins]

23. Lol.... and YOU get to decide what is in the public interest, right?

Makes "corporate welfare" a particularly useful accusation... since the SAME behavior (incentives to a corporation) is or is not "welfare" based on whether they are implementing what YOU want.

Of course, as a debating technique, that removes any semantic value from your posts... but when did that become something new?

In reality (you should visit), we elect people to implement the public's interests... and those elected officials (supported by a clear majority of their constituents) say that building new nuclear plants is in their best interest.

[kristopher]

27. Objective reality does that

[FBaggins]

28. Nope.

But circular reasoning does.

[Statistical]

4. Actually subsidies for wind & solar are 15X higher than nuclear energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

So which industry is relying on "corporate welfare"?

Still I object to the term "corporate welfare". fossil fuels have low economic cost and high externalized costs. Without govt intervention we would simply burn more and more and more fossil fuels. We have no shortage of natural gas or coal. We could run our entire power grid of coal/natural gas for centuries.

To avoid that requires govt intervention because the current free market choice (since externalized costs of fossil fuel are not accoutned) is to burn fossil fuels.

The govt can intervene in multiple ways
* raise cost of fossil fuels (carbon tax)
* lower cost of carbon free sources (subsidies)
* mandate energy sources to be used

The reality is that wind & solar receive 15x the subsidies on nuclear per unit of energy.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf (Page 6)
Nuclear: $1.59 per MWh
Solar: $24.34 per MWh
Wind: $24.37 per MWh

Still the sad thing is that the lionshare of all subsidies go to hydrocarbons (including ethanol)

[kristopher]

13. Actually nuclear power has gotten 96% of noncarbon subsidies over the past 50 years

Your again trying to intentionally deceive people. This classic Heritage Foundation argument is exactly what those "think tanks" are paid to produce; in using today's output (which is based on 50 years of nuclear getting 96% of noncarbon subsidy support) and only comparing it to the current distribution of subsidies, it is making a false argument.

It is (almost)* like an obese person that is put on a strict diet on Tuesday saying on Wednesday, "That thin person eats more than I do".

I say "almost because nuclear is STILL getting the lions share of subsidies today even though 50 years of such support has not enabled them to stand on their own.

[Statistical]

14. However you claim is that NEW INDUSTRY and NEW REACTORS are only happening because of welfare.

"He was speaking of the nuclear industry as a viable economic "industry", not as a corporate welfare recipient."

The reality is the subsidy on nuclear power is very small compared to the amount of energy produced and the amount of private capital required to make that happen.

Nobody is building a new nuclear forge for the tiny 0.1 cents per kWh in federal subsidies on nuclear power.

The small amount of current subsidies can not justify NEW EXPENDITURES in nuclear support industry a fact you just can't seem to grasp.
The small amount of current subsidies can not justify NEW EXPENDITURES by Public non profit utilities in new reactors.

[kristopher]

17. Bull.

The subsidies for nuclear are huge; without them, the direct price would be 300-600% higher.

[Statistical]

19. How do you figure that. Subsidies are 0.1 per kWh.

Average electrical wholesale power cost in this country is 5 cents per kWh. It is rather clear that 0.1 cents on 5 cent power doesn't provide a meaningful economic incentive. Also subsidies include things that don't directly lower prices (or raise profits) such as R&D.

Then again 2.3 cents subsidy on a product that costs 5 cents is quite a large (and unsustainable subsidy).

When wind can compete without a 2 cent subsidy on every kWh (sold for 5 cents) let me know.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Are you sure about that?

(The side question here, dear readers, is: Has Kris figured out yet that I don't usually ask questions unless I already know the answers?)

[kristopher]

20. Am I sure about what?

[Dead_Parrot]

21. 96% over the last 50 years. nt

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Hmm. While Kris is thinking of an answer

- or dare I say, checking his facts - I'll leave everyone with this:

Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI), conducting a study of the cumulative effects of energy subsidies, found that by 1997 Federal subsidies for energy had amounted to $564 billion (1997 dollars) over the last five decades, roughly half of which went to the oil industry in the form of tax expenditures. MISI considered eight categories of Federal activity and quantified subsidies in six. In contrast to other findings, MISI found that subsidies to renewable sources ($90 billion) outpaced those to natural gas ($73 billion), coal ($68 billion), or nuclear energy ($61 billion)*. MISI itemized Federal research and development spending for nuclear, coal, and solar sources, reporting 1997 figures of $130 million, $227 million, and $259 million, respectively. MISI concluded that since renewable sources have contributed only marginally to the Nation's energy supply, solar research and development subsidies are disproportionately large and should be redirected to nuclear and fossil energy research.

*MISI included subsidies estimated at $62.5 billion cumulatively to hydroelectricity in the renewable total of $90 billion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/appendix_a.html

[Statistical]

24. I would love to see an updated version.

There is a 2 cent (staggering amount of money) subsidy to each kwh produced by wind. This has been in effect since 2002.
Since capacity of wind (and to a lesser extent solar) has increased significantly over last decade the subsidy has increased also.

[kristopher]

25. Nuclear at $15.30/kwh?

As your snip said, "in contrast to other findings..."

REPP Research Report
Wind, solar and nuclear power received approximately $150 billion in cumulative Federal subsidies over roughly fifty years, some 95% of which supported nuclear power. Perhaps more significant, nuclear power received far higher levels of support per kilowatt-hour generated early in its history than did wind or solar. Federal Energy Subsidies also provides a qualitative accounting of Federal involvement in hydropower development.


FEDERAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES: NOT ALL TECHNOLOGIES ARE CREATED EQUAL
by Marshall Goldberg

Federal Energy Subsidies provides a historical accounting of federal government subsidies to nuclear, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal electricity generating technologies. Also provided is a less complete accounting of federal subsidies for hydroelectric power.

In addition to identifying the actual dollar amounts of the subsidies during the last 60 years, the report offers new insights on how these subsidies have fared relative to each other. A simple message emerges from Federal Energy Subsidies: it takes a substantial amount of money, invested over several years, to bring an electricity generation technology to maturity.

This analysis comes at a time when citizens and policymakers alike are debating the environmental impacts of energy use, the role in the American economy of corporate welfare, and appropriate levels of government spending. It provides pertinent information for the ongoing debate regarding the government’s influence on energy markets, its support for nuclear power, and, more recently, the notion that renewables are heavily subsidized and receiving preferential treatment. The report concludes that federal support for nuclear power has far surpassed support for renewables, and that over the long term this public investment correlates with increasing electricity generation by the nuclear sector—although, of course, the increase in nuclear generation reflects several factors in addition to federal investment.

From 1943 through 1999, cumulative federal government subsidies to these electricity-generating technologies (excluding hydropower) totaled almost $151 billion (in 1999 dollars). This figure includes all direct program budgetary outlays, plus several of the most notable off-budget subsidies and policies, including tax credits and incentive payments for renewable energy, as well as nuclear liability limitations. The nuclear industry received $145.4 billion, or over 96 percent of the subsidies. Those to photovoltaic and solar thermal power accounted for a cumulative total of $4.4 billion, while wind technology received $1.3 billion.

Data on early expenditures for hydropower are incomplete. This reflects both the scarcity of archived generation and investment data on hydropower—the development of which began in the 1890s—and the complex historical context of federal hydropower development. In particular, federal hydropower facilities often formed part of larger projects with multiple goals, including flood control, river navigability, regional development, and stimulation of the local and national economies. For this reason, it is difficult to attribute a specific portion of federal investment for power generation. Nevertheless, to assist in further investigations, the figure of $1.6 billion can be given for a set of straightforward subsidies to hydropower.

Analyses of subsidies during the first 15 years of federal support versus electricity generated reveals surprising differences. Notably, commercial, fission-related nuclear power development received subsidies worth $15.30 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) between 1947 and 1961. This compares with subsidies worth $7.19/kWh for solar and 46¢/kWh for wind between 1975 and 1989. In their first 15 years, nuclear and wind technology produced roughly the same amount of energy (2.6 billion and 1.9 billion kilowatt-hours, respectively), but the subsidy to nuclear outweighed that to wind by a factor of over 40, at $39.4 billion to $900 million. It may be that this differential contributed to a more mature nuclear sector, as reflected in its much more rapid growth; by 1999, nuclear generation totaled 727.9 billion kWh annually, while wind generation totaled 3.5 billion kWh.

When cumulative subsidies and electricity generation for all years are accounted for (that is, through 1999), subsidies to the development of commercial, fission-related nuclear power results in a subsidy cost of 1.2¢/kWh. This compares with a subsidy cost of 51¢/kWh for solar and 4¢/kWh for wind. As these numbers suggest, greater generation from nuclear power swamps the greater absolute subsidies to that technology. Again, it seems that larger early investment in nuclear power paid off in subsequent years.

In short, subsidies have played an important role in the development of the technologies examined in the report. The study points to the need to reevaluate energy subsidies in light of larger energy and environmental goals.


Marshall Goldberg is the principal of MRG & Associates, an environmental and
economics consulting firm in Madison, WI. Mr. Goldberg is a resource planner
specializing in energy and environmental policy analysis. He can be contacted at
[email protected].

[Statistical]

29. Your own quote shows how effective subsidies for nuclear power are.

When cumulative subsidies and electricity generation for all years are accounted for (that is, through 1999), subsidies to the development of commercial, fission-related nuclear power results in a subsidy cost of 1.2¢/kWh. This compares with a subsidy cost of 51¢/kWh for solar and 4¢/kWh for wind. As these numbers suggest, greater generation from nuclear power swamps the greater absolute subsidies to that technology. Again, it seems that larger early investment in nuclear power paid off in subsequent years.

Wonderful. Early high subsidies for nuclear paid off. The total cost to taxpayers has been very low (1.2 cents per kWh). Looking at current year subsidies for nuclear energy are even less (0.1 cents per kWh). This means as time goes on the lifetime subsidy for nuclear energy will continue to decline on a per unit of energy (kWh) basis.

Thats for pointing out how great the investment in nuclear energy has been!

[kristopher]

30. No one said there was no effect; you were trying to pretend nuke subsidies are small

They are not, and there is no justification for continuing them. If they have "paid off" then we can eliminate them entirely and devote ALL THOSE FUNDS to renewables for a change.

[Statistical]

31. The current subsidies ARE small.

It is pointless to eliminate them until we eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.

Why not eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels, implement carbon tax and then there is no need for the token amount of nuclear subsidies in an economic sense.

Still some funding on pure research is always a good idea. Pure science is not profitable. It has always been the relm of govt to support theoretical science and nuclear R&D is no exception.

[joshcryer]

33. "Why not eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels" = tax fossil fuels

Fossil fuels only get a pithy percentage of overall grants (DOE R&D), this is why the Cato Institute doesn't believe that they get much subsidies. However, progressives calculate fossil fuel subsidies by the externalized costs that those fuels are creating, and their failure to pay for those costs now via taxes.

[Statistical]

36. Actually about half of all federal subsidies are on fossil fuels.

Unlike some I use the method GAO and DOE use. A federal subsidy is any financial benefit provided by the federal govt. That includes direct spending (grants, low guarantee cost), tarrifs on foreign competitors, tax subsidies/breaks, and access to natural resources at below market value.



Of course I am all for a carbon tax too but even eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would be a good start.

Also like you said these don't include externalized costs (like military spending to protect flow of oil back to the the empire).

[joshcryer]

32. Careful, he doesn't consider tax breaks subsidies.

[Statistical]

5. and Virginia (among other places)

A Chinese nuclear energy company has ordered more than $15 million in parts that Flowserve Corporation makes in factories in Lynchburg and in Raleigh, N.C.

Flowserve announced the deal on Wednesday.

China’s State Nuclear Power Engineering Company Ltd. ordered safety-related valves and actuators for Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors being built in China. The two reactors are expected to begin operating in 2014 and 2015, according to a news release.

The actuators will be built in Flowserve’s plant on Woodall Road in Lynchburg. Flowserve bought the former Limitorque facility in 2002. It employs about 250 people there. The valves for the order will be made at Flowserve’s facility in Raleigh, N.C.

“This order further strengthens our long-standing relationship with the Chinese nuclear power industry and with our customer, State Nuclear Power Engineering Company Ltd.,” said Mark Blinn, Flowserve President and Chief Executive Officer, in a news release. “We are proud to be a part of renewable energy production in China, which will reduce emissions and improve the environment.”

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/business/local/article/chinese_nuclear_company_places_15_million_order_with_flowserve/24927/

Construction began in late 2009 BTW. Wait 2014-2009 = 5 years. I thought it takes 19 years to build a reactor?
AP1000 isn't that the GenIII reactor planned for GA. So we need to believe the Chinese can build it in 5 years but Americans (the people who invented the concept of electrical energy from the atom) can't? China buying high precision safety equipment from the United States.

It is almost like everything I have heard about nuclear power in "studies" conflicts with the facts in real world.

[FBaggins]

6. Five years?

In fact, the AP1000 design is supposed to take three years from the first concrete pouring (obviously some site work prior to that will be variable) to fueling.

This assumes that a significant number of essentially identical units will be constructed... but China alone is reportedly looking for 100 of them.

[Statistical]

7. 5 years for the 1st AP 1000 reactor ever built (anywhere on the planet). 4 years for the 2nd one.

Seems possible if you keep building them at a set schedule future plants would come online faster.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Unless you get dragged into court for the next 15 years

Sigh.

Edit: To be fair, this applies to wind farms as well.

[Statistical]

9. True however that is less of an issue in China.

NRC & Congress have done a good job of reforming regulatory structure here.

The issuance of a single license (construction & operating), the mandatory public hearings prior to construction, and more safeguards for utility owner if they comply with regulation should reduce that.

The second factor is that most of new reactors being planned in US are next to existing reactors. That helps reduce the NIMBY effect.
Also public support for nuclear power has risen dramatically in last 20 years.

However to be honest we really don't know how the public/protest/court side of the equation will work until we build the first two reactors in Georgia.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. I don't think it's an issue at all in China

"Hi, we're going to build a coal mine/dam/nuclear plant/windfarm/silicon smelter in your back yard"
"But that's horrible! You can't do that! I want to complain!"
Bang. Thud.
"Anyone else want to complain? No? Right, get digging."

[Statistical]

11. Yeah not saying we should adopt the Chinese model.

rather than other countries seem to build reactors without decade long delays.

Japan, Korea, Germany, Sweden, Finland, France all seem to be able to build reactors in a 4-6 years.

The issue with delays in the US has nothing to do with technology. It is a self fulfilling prophecy for anti-nukers.

Anti-nuker: "Nuclear power is an expensive boondogle"
Delays construction of reactor for decade.
Capitalized interest increases the cost of reactor
Anti-nuker: "See proof that nuclear power is an expensive boondogle!"

If we could break that cycle even for a few reactors it would radically change the economics of nuclear power.

People often under estimate the power (or pain) of compounded interest.

Say hypothetical reactor x is $6 billion.
5 year construction with costs capitalized (no payments while under construction) then 30 year repayment at 7% interest.
The cost (including capitalized interest) at end of construction is $7.0 billion.
Total capital cost over 30 years the (interest and principle) is $16.8 billion.

Now take the same hypothetical reactor but increase construction to 10 years, add $1 billion in regulatory changed in middle of construction, and boost interest rate to 8.5% (to compensate for risk).

The cost (including capitalized interest) at end of construction is now $15.8 billion (over double the baseline reactor).
Total capital cost over 30 years the (interest and principle) is $43.8 billion.


The two hypthetical plants have the same lifetime, same amount of power generated, same amount of revenue, same operating costs.
The second one however has an extra $27 billion in lifetime costs.

Extra $1 billion in cost because of regulatory design changes after construction starts
Extra 5 years in construction
Extra 1.5% in interest
The combination triples the construction side (90% of lifetime cost) and vastly changes the economics of nuclear energy.

[kristopher]

16. Nice job of fudging costs.

The market interest rate is closer to 13.5% when you consider the risk for nuclear. Anything below that is subsidy.

China has just revamped their grid operating paradigm and grid operators will be buying all renewable generation before buy nonrenewable power.

What do you suppose is going to happen to all those proposed nuclear plants?

[Statistical]

18. China will build them.

China has no NIMBY factor, no science hating anti-nukkers. The only good side about a totalitarian govt is they can move quickly and adopt plans that would be impossible in Western World (like build 100 reactors in next 2 decades).

Lower labor costs directly lower cost of nuclear energy in China (compared to Western World) because nuclear reactor construction is very labor intensive.

You let me know when China cancels a reactor, I'll be waiting.

As far as capital cost of nuclear energy. Well that is another of your myths that is unraveling in the real world.

Municipal Bonds To Finance Georgia Nuclear Power Plant
http://cenvironment.blogspot.com/2010/03/municipal-bonds-to-finance-georgia.html

About $1.2 billion in Build America Bonds, due April 1, 2057, were launched at 205 basis points, or 2.05 percentage points over the yield of comparable Treasurys. Orders totaled over $3 billion.

To the uninitiated 2.05% over T-bond is about 6%. Notice the bids over $3 billion for $1.2 billion in bonds. That is called oversubscribed and indicates pent up demand. So at 6% investors considered the rate a value (possibly it was offered at too high of an interest rate).

[kristopher]

26. And where is the cost of loan guarantees and ratepayer commitments figured in?

[joshcryer]

35. Unfortunately, even 100 reactors in 2 decades isn't enough to reduce emissions.

[Statistical]

37. True which is why nuclear is only part of a solution.

Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, Nuclear, and energy efficiency are all required working TOGETHER to reduce emissions.

The world also needs to recognized emerging nations like China, Brazil, India will not react as fast and as such it will take larger cuts by the first world to compensate at least initially.

[joshcryer]

34. Nice.

You win for snark.

:rofl: