“I think nuclear will have to be an option.”

Southern Co. has not had a bad time putting up two new reactors at its Plant Vogtle site in Georgia, so maybe they can do a little more of that (behind a pay wall, though you can join for the day for 99 cents – though your email will never see the end of solicitations):

The company — convinced natural gas and alternative fuels will not satisfy future demand — is already considering whether to start the process toward another, post-Vogtle nuclear project, a top executive says.

“I can tell you that we want to keep nuclear as an option on the table, so don’t be surprised if we start a licensing process to keep that option alive,” President and Chief Executive Officer Paul Bowers said in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “(It’s) a 10-year, 10-to 12-year process to build. So keeping it alive, I think we have to keep that in consideration.”

Bowers says the idea would be to consider new build after determining Georgia’s electricity needs in 2025. But what about renewables. Meet the knights who say Niche:

The falling cost of solar makes it a more viable resource, but the utility and its parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., say renewables will remain a “niche” in the Southeast for now.
“If you’re going to take coal out of the mix, then you’re left with two options for diversity: that’s nuclear and natural gas,” said Chuck Eaton, chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission. “We’re expecting the economy to get better … there will be more demand on the grid, (so) I think nuclear will have to be an option.”

Kristi Swartz’s story does not expand on why Southern Co. considers renewables a niche, but Southern Co. Chairman, President and CEO Thomas Fanning certainly has done so:

Fanning said renewable sources of energy like wind and solar tend to be available in sparsely populated areas, requiring expensive transmission lines to distribute the electricity.

Renewables rely heavily on federal tax credits, making the industry vulnerable if those go away, he said.

Fanning said renewable energy also is intermittent by nature.

“What do you do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?” he said.

He does say, though, that renewable energy could become more economical – or more stably economic - over the next decade and, then, maybe. And it looks like Southern Co. and Georgia Power are pacted with Ted Turner on some renewable projects, so there’s that.

Read More

NEA 2013 CEO Panel Video is Must See TV for Nuclear Energy Industry Watchers

Over the past few weeks, we've gotten multiple requests from our member companies to distribute video of the most popular panel discussion at the 2013 Nuclear Energy Assembly. The clip embedded below is from a panel discussion between four industry CEOs: Tom Farrell of Dominion Resources; Chris Crane of Exelon; Tom Fanning of Southern Company; and Tony Alexander of FirstEnergy Corp. The topic: "Navigating Uncharted Seas: CEO Perspectives on the Electricity Business."

The discussion, moderated by Dominion's Farrell, was both frank and free-wheeling. If you really want to get some insight into the issues nuclear operators are facing these days in both regulated and merchant markets, this 31-minute video is a great place to start.


Now, we understand that not everyone is going to have 30 minutes to devote to watching the entire discussion. That's why we're hard at work back at the office editing this same video into smaller bites that can be digested more easily in a single sitting. Look for those sound bites sometime in the next week or so.

Read More

Buyers Remorse in Georgia?

You just knew it would happen: after Georgia Power announced it would take another year to bring the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle online, the Associated Press intoned:

As the cost of building a new nuclear plant soars, there are signs of buyer's remorse.

See last week’s post below this one about the “soaring costs,” I was interested to read where the buyer’s remorse was coming from. The main source would be Georgia Power or its parent, Southern Co., right? Not a word about any such remorse here. Well, then, who or what does the article have weeping brokenly?

[A] Georgia lawmaker sought to penalize the company for going over budget, announcing a proposal to cut into Southern Co.'s profits by trimming some of the money its subsidiary Georgia Power makes.

The legislation has a coalition of tea party, conservative and consumer advocacy groups behind it, but faces a tough sale in the Republican-controlled General Assembly. GOP Rep. Jeff Chapman found just a single co-sponsor, Democratic Rep. Karla Drenner.

So, one state representative who can’t get much traction on his bill. Tea party?

"Conservatives do not believe in incentivizing failure," Debbie Dooley, a co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party, recently told Georgia lawmakers. "They should not profit from this mistake."

But conservatives do believe in providing a lot of emission free electricity to their constituents, which is likely the reason that bill isn’t finding supporters. And I would hesitate to say a one year delay equals failure or a mistake.
A certain, shall we say, enhancement of language is not alien to southerners (I’m one myself, from Georgia even) and very useful in political discussions, but these feel like a few vagrant folk angry at Georgia Power, not evidence of buyers remorse – which I would take to mean the owners are boo-hooing about taking on this horrid project. But no. More below on the company’s perspective.
To be fair, the article goes on to talk about the closing of FP&L’s Crystal River facility in Florida, but the evidence there doesn’t seem any more compelling.
---
One of our  valued commenters asked a fair question: why are the two reactors at Vogtle delayed? World Nuclear News (from September 2012) has a fair summary:

Work began to install steel reinforcing bar (rebar) for the base mat in the nuclear island for Vogtle 3 in February, soon after the plant received its construction and operation license (COL) from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, in March the NRC ruled that a design for the installation of floor rebar developed by Georgia Power's contractor did not conform with the DCD [design control document], and installation work was put on hold pending investigations and license amendment requests. Permission was granted to restart rebar installation in early August. Georgia Power says it expects to receive approval of its license amendment request from the NRC in October [this did happen – see here], when it will start pouring the first nuclear concrete for unit 3.

In its report to the Georgia Public Service Commission (Eighth Semi-Annual Construction Monitoring Report), issued in February, Georgia Power wrote:

Under our current schedule assumptions, the Facility [Vogtle 3 & 4] will bring approximately $4 billion in additional value to customers when it is completed as compared to alternative generation available today.
Even in extended delay scenarios performed at the Commission’s request, the Facility remains economic.

This whole book is worth a look, though it’s pretty dense. Maybe two or three looks over a couple of days.

Read More

Vogtle and the Truth of Another Year

The two reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle will be delayed about a year and cost $381 million more than originally planned.

Is this disappointing? A bit – I’m eager to see these up and running, but the years, they do speed by, don’t they? 2017 will be here soon enough.

Certainly, though, another year of work means ratepayers are on the hook, right? No, it doesn’t seem so. The truth of another year is that it does not represent a major issue for the ratepayers.

But the company’s analysis continues to show that adding more nuclear energy to Georgia Power’s portfolio would be a better deal for customers by $4 billion over the life of the plant than any other available energy source, said Buzz Miller, Georgia Power’s executive vice president for nuclear development. “We have a very good project for our goals of building it right with quality and compliance ,” he said.

And happily, Georgia Power has some options.

Miller said the additional costs will be offset by federal production tax credits Congress passed in 2005 to incentivize the nuclear industry, potential federal loan guarantees, and less-than-anticipated financing costs due to low interest rates.

These elements count for a lot – Southern Co. (Georgia Power’s parent) accepted the loan guarantee provisionally awhile ago, but has not fully negotiated terms for it with the government. I wouldn’t see this Miller’s statement as hinting at a resolution on the loan guarantee (or not) – he is just laying out the possibilities.

Ann Daiss, Georgia Power vice president and comptroller, said ratepayers also will see savings because scheduling delays mean the utility isn’t spending as much in the project’s early years as originally anticipated.

The end result will be stable costs over many years.

In the meantime, the project is a boon to Georgia.

Approximately 2,300 people are now on site at Vogtle units 3 and 4 near Waynesboro. At peak construction, the project is expected to create 5,000 onsite jobs, making it the largest job-producing project in Georgia. There will be 800 permanent jobs when the facility is operational.

Georgia is pretty forward looking when it comes to providing a stable business market, which means its encourages large infrastructure projects to support new business, but this still surprised me. “Largest job-producing project in Georgia?” That’s really saying something, particularly in the current economic climate.

So, in terms of fretting about another year, meh.

I know this story will pick up some exercises in concern trolling, especially from people who never wanted the reactors in the first place, but it looks to me as though Georgia Power has explained the situation well enough to quell major concerns if not necessarily trolling. Time will tell on that one.

But - if you need something to worry about, look elsewhere. This isn’t it.

Read More

Guest Post: Nuclear Energy and the Value of CWIP

Bottom of containment vessel for new reactor at Plant Vogtle

The following guest post was written by NEI's Mitch Singer.

Jeff McMahon bases his argument against nuclear cost recovery “Editors Rebel Against Ratepayer Financing For Nuclear Plants,” on the sole premise that because natural gas is inexpensive at this point in time it will remain so for decades. Therefore, energy companies should rely solely on one source of electricity generation. Ignoring the old adage of not putting your eggs in one basket is as relevant in generation choices as it is in financial investments.

Energy companies evaluate a variety of factors to determine their generating mix and plan not in years, but rather decades ahead. Public utility commissioners do the same. They conduct an extensive analysis of the state’s demand growth commonly known as a “determination of needs” that looks at all methods of generation to see which ones are most suitable. Commissioners are also obligated to make sure there is diversification in the state’s generating portfolio, balance economic and environmental concerns and try to keep costs down.

Florida, for example, receives 62 percent of its electricity from natural gas and an overall 86 percent from fossil fuels. Natural gas may be low now, but history has proven on many occasions that low natural gas prices in the U.S. are not sustainable. Within the last month we’ve seen the price of natural gas spike to more than $30 per million BTU on the spot market in New England due to frigid weather and a shortage of natural gas pipeline capacity. So what did New England do to mitigate the impact? It imported significant amounts of electricity from the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York.

Here in lies the value of nuclear energy as it provides a stable, low-operating cost baseload source of electricity that offers a myriad of economic and environmental benefits. Nuclear cost recovery, commonly known as construction work in progress (CWIP), allows a utility to recover financing costs and return on equity. By doing so, a utility avoids paying “interest on interest” that would occur if all costs are held until the plant goes into service. 

In Georgia, where Southern Co. and Georgia Power are building two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, just this past week the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the latest cost and schedule reports. One PSC staff member put the reasoning succinctly, saying the project “remains more economically viable than any other (fuel) resource, including a natural gas-fired alternative.”

In Georgia, CWIP is expected to save Southern Company’s ratepayers $300 million in financing costs during construction. CWIP also will reduce the in-service cost of the plant by $2 billion, saving customers additional financing costs over its expected 60-year life. The utility also has improved cash flows through CWIP that support stronger financial ratings, which result in lower interest costs for the project and all other utility investments over the long term. CWIP is allowed by public utilities and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to support the construction of baseload electricity plants and transmission lines for a simple reason: because it saves money for consumers and gets necessary infrastructure constructed.

New nuclear power plants also act as a macro-economic catalyst. The reliable, low-cost electricity provided by nuclear plants operates at close to 90 percent capacity. Thus, nuclear’s forward price and supply stability provide a high level of confidence in attracting capital formation to start new businesses and expand existing businesses, which results in job formation and expanded tax revenues. The Plant Vogtle project is about one-third completed and has already generated almost 5,000 jobs during the construction period and there will be about 700 permanent, high-paying jobs associated with the two new reactors when they’re completed by the end of this decade. In addition the average nuclear plant generates approximately $470 million a year in total output for the local community and about $40 million per year in total labor income. Nuclear also bring the environmental benefit of being the largest source of emission-free electricity.

Natural gas may be the preferred generation choice of today. But as Roman conquerors were warned during the celebrations of their triumphs; all glory is fleeting.

Read More

Guest Post: Nuclear Energy’s Value Proposition Still Strong, Will Reassert Itself in Next Decade

J. Scott Peterson

The following guest post was written by J. Scott Peterson, NEI's senior vice president, communications.

NEW YORK CITY—Despite challenging electricity markets and natural gas prices at a 13-year low, industry leaders are confident in the long-term prospects for nuclear energy and its contributions to the electricity mix and U.S. economic growth.

On average, America’s 104 commercial reactors are the most efficient power producers on the grid—operating at 86 percent capacity factor. Capacity factor is a measure of efficiency, with a 100-percent rating equaling full power production 24/7, 365 days. Absent reactors in California, Florida and Nebraska that have been closed virtually all year for extended maintenance, the capacity factor at the other 100 reactors was just shy of 90 percent.

“We continue to invest in these facilities to preserve their asset value,” NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel told nearly 200 financial analysts and journalists at the Institute’s annual briefing in New York. “We want them in position to operate beyond 40 years—perhaps more than 60 years—and to incorporate new upgrades to maintain the highest possible level of safety.”

Depressed natural gas prices, which set electricity prices in many markets, and flat electricity demand are putting near-term pressure on some nuclear energy facilities in deregulated markets. But Fertel and industry leaders are focusing on nuclear energy’s role providing fuel diversity in the electric sector for the longer-term and the value chain of nuclear energy that extends beyond low-cost, reliable power production.

“Our plans must be flexible to adapt to high- and low-price markets and must balance short- and long-term views,” Entergy Corp. CEO Leo Denault told analysts Feb. 8. He added that Entergy, which operates 12 reactors, would continue to advocate for markets that value nuclear energy’s added value: “a source of clean energy with effectively zero emissions, grid reliability…fuel diversity, and jobs and other contributions to the regional economy.”

Fertel echoed Denault’s value chain for nuclear energy on Thursday. “Low-carbon, baseload electricity is a crucial element of sustainable development and it is why many nations are building or planning to build more nuclear energy facilities. The value proposition for nuclear energy is still strong and will reassert itself as we move beyond the near term.”

Recognition of this value chain is growing among policymakers, environmental leaders and consumers. Eighty-one percent of U.S. adults in a Feb. 8-10 survey by Bisconti Research/GfK said nuclear energy is important to America’s electricity mix.

That value chain includes:

• Production of large quantities of electricity around the clock—nearly 770 billion kilowatt-hours in 2012;

• Job creation, including thousands of jobs at new reactor projects in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee and a doubling of uranium enrichment production in New Mexico;

• Providing clean air compliance, including the prevention of controlled emissions under the Clean Air Act and reducing the carbon compliance burden that would otherwise fall on natural gas and coal-fired power plant;

• Providing voltage support to the grid;

• Providing forward power price stability, particularly for large industrial users of electricity;

• Contributing to fuel and technology diversity that is one of the foundations of America’s reliable and resilient electric sector.

“We continue to believe that our [nuclear] assets are some of the lowest-cost, most dispatchable baseload assets,” Exelon CEO Christopher Crane told The Chicago Tribune on Feb. 8.

Nuclear energy facilities are increasingly important for fuel diversity as natural gas use for electricity generation grows. In Florida, where more than 60 percent of electricity is produced by burning natural gas, Florida Power and Light recently completed uprates totaling 490 megawatts at its Turkey Point and St. Lucie reactors. Based on the FPL’s latest projected price of fuel and other factors, this investment is projected to save customers $3.8 billion on fossil fuel costs that otherwise would have been used over their operating lifetime.

“This value proposition will become increasingly self-evident and will drive a bright long-term future for nuclear energy,” said Fertel.

Read More

The Future in Miniature with Georgia Power

Miniature not because Georgia Power is a small provider of electricity, but because the company’s view of its own future may provide some insight into larger energy trends. We should not assume this to be true, an easy trap to fall into; instead, let’s look at it as one data point in a thesis that could be proven or disproven by more data points.

The reason we can glimpse into the future is because the Georgia Public Service Commission requires Georgia Power to submit what it calls an integrated resource plan. This IRP provides a look at the electricity landscape over the next 20 years. Georgia Power prepares a new IRP every three years, so its outlook can change based on changes in the marketplace.

Although we often refer to the two new reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle as a Southern Co. project, the facility is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30%), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%) and Dalton Utilities (1.6%). Georgia Power is a subsidiary of Southern Co. and, as you can see, owns the largest share of Plant Vogtle.

But nuclear later. First, coal (and oil): 

As part of today's filing, Georgia Power is requesting to decertify and retire 15 coal- and oil-fired generating units totaling 2,061 megawatts (MW): Units 3 and 4 at Plant Branch in Putnam County; units 1-5 at Plant Yates in Coweta County; units 1 and 2 at Plant McManus in Glynn County; and units 1-4 at Plant Kraft in Chatham County; and Boulevard units 2 and 3, also in Chatham County. In addition, the company is requesting to decertify and sell Plant Bowen Unit 6, which has a rating of 32 MW, bringing the total of retired capacity to 2,093 MW.

I don’t think the company links these closures explicitly to the two new reactors at Vogtle, but consider:

As recently as a year ago, Georgia Power and its parent, Atlanta-based Southern Co., complained about new environmental regulations to reduce toxic emissions from power plants, saying those rules could force the utility to close several coal plants and threaten peak capacity. Company officials said that is no longer a concern because long-term demand is not as high as they once predicted.

And:

Once a dominant fuel for electricity generation, coal’s use will continue to diminish as Georgia Power closes more than a dozen coal and oil-fired units.

And that’s because they do not expect to open any new coal-fired units to replace the closed units.

How about natural gas?

Also, Georgia Power will request converting units 6 and 7 at Plant Yates from coal to natural gas, and will switch from burning Central Appalachian coal to burning Powder River Basin coal at Plant McIntosh Unit 1, pending a successful test burn and further study.

So two more units will halve their carbon emissions. I have no idea of the implications of changing coal type at McIntosh – I’ll leave that to black rock mavens to explain – though I reckon it is meant to improve the facility’s emissions profile.

So no new coal units, a switch of two units to natural gas – and nuclear energy? Well, the story about the filing mentions it only in passing, so let’s tell that part of the story ourselves: the two new reactors will pack about 2234 megawatts capacity. Hmm – coal out, about 2061 megawatts, nuclear in, about 2234. Seems pretty quid pro quo to me, at least as a correlation.

The switchover to natural gas, the build out of nuclear energy, the development of renewable energy sources – Georgia Power expects to field 1500 megawatts of capacity by 2016 – suggests a rapidly changing, environmentally aware and nuclear-friendly energy portfolio. Just to put a cherry on it, let’s add this to our data points:

The continuing expansion of renewable energy technologies, advances in energy efficiency, and the rapid shift from coal to natural gas for generating electricity combined to bring down U.S. carbon dioxide emissions last year to their lowest levels since 1994, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 

And it’s only going to get better when the new reactors in Georgia (and South Carolina) go online later this decade. Still, it’s all good – in miniature or life size.

Read More

Plant Vogtle Crane One of Largest in the World

The 560-foot tall lift derrick at Plant Vogtle (Southern Company).

That is one mighty big crane. Here are all the details from Southern Company:

Testing has begun on a major component in the construction of two new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 – a 560-foot tall heavy lift derrick, one of the biggest cranes in the world.

The derrick, which will be used to move large pieces at the site of the first new nuclear units built in the United States in 30 years, has the capacity to move the equivalent of five 747 jets across the distance of more than three-and-a-half football fields in a single lift.

In addition, major components will begin arriving to the site later this year and early 2013, the first of which will be the reactor vessel for Unit 3. The Unit 3 condensers have arrived from South Korea, where they were manufactured. Unit 3 is scheduled to go online in 2016, and Unit 4 will follow in 2017.

Also at the site, significant work has been done on turbine islands, cooling towers and nuclear islands. Over the next several months, progress will continue to be made in the nuclear island, turbine building and module assemblies.

"The project is progressing extremely well, especially when compared to other large-scale infrastructure projects worldwide," said Joseph A. "Buzz" Miller, Executive Vice President of Nuclear Development for Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear. "The Vogtle 3 and 4 project provides at least $2.2 billion more value to customers than the next best available technology, according to Georgia Public Service Commission staff."

For more photos and videos from the construction site, click here.

Read More

Steve Byrne of SCE&G on Controlling New Nuclear Construction Costs

Earlier this month, the Associated Press ran a story on its national wire concerning what it described as rising construction costs at America's new nuclear plants:

America's first new nuclear plants in more than a decade are costing billions more to build and sometimes taking longer to deliver than planned, problems that could chill the industry's hopes for a jumpstart to the nation's new nuclear age.

A couple of days later, I had a chance to spend a few minutes with Steve Byrne, SCE&G's President, Generation and COO, to ask him some questions about the topic. SCE&G's parent company, SCANA Corporation, is building a pair of new reactors at the VC Summer site in South Carolina (click here for the latest progress report from SCANA). I started off by asking Steve why claims that costs were spiraling out of control at VC Summer and Plant Vogtle in Georgia were incorrect:




I also had the chance to ask Steve about how "construction work in progress" provisions help utilities better manage construction costs and how the industry has taken lessons learned from the past and applied them to controlling costs. If you'd like to watch all three videos in sequence, click here.

Read More

Resurgence in American Nuclear Industry To Start in Ga., Says Energy Chief

In case you missed the tweets from @SouthernCompany or @EnergyPressSec yesterday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu  toured the site where two new reactors are being built at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Ga. Reconfirming his commitment to nuclear energy, the Nobel Laureate spoke to the more than 500 workers already on site on the need to build new nuclear plants to create jobs for American workers and boost U.S. competitiveness.

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a blueprint for an American economy that is built to last and develops every available source of American energy,” said Secretary Chu. “Nuclear power is an important part of that blueprint. The work being done in Georgia and at research organizations like Oak Ridge National Laboratory is helping restore American leadership in the global race for the nuclear energy jobs of tomorrow.”

Just how many new jobs is Secretary Chu talking about? Business Week says:

About 1,700 workers are already on the job site and plant managers say that number will grow to nearly 5,000 at the peak of construction. Once the completed units go online, they will employ about 800 permanent workers.

Those numbers only capture the direct jobs from the project, but indirectly, Business Week explains that constructing the two new reactors means a lot more people coming to the area, consuming more goods and services at local businesses. Take, for example, Allen DeLaigle:

"Plant Vogtle has pretty well saved Burke County," said Allen DeLaigle, who owns and manages an RV park with his twin brother about 4 miles from the nuclear plant.

Since site preparation ramped up for the new units, DeLaigle's park has filled about 90 of its 151 spaces with RVs and campers owned by workers coming in from other states such as Alabama and Mississippi, West Virginia and Ohio.

Or Robin Baxley:

Robin Baxley, owner of a Waynesboro office supply store, added two new employees to keep up with deliveries of pens, paper, marker boards and thumb drives to the modular offices set up on the construction site. Her business also supplied the cubicles, desks and file cabinets for many of those temporary offices

"They helped us make it through the economic downturn," Baxley said. "Office furniture is not the first thing people buy when they can hardly make payroll."

The project also will create approximately 35,000 jobs for suppliers and manufacturers, which is why groups like the National Association of Manufacturers wholeheartedly support the project:

Manufacturers use one-third of the energy consumed in the Unites States, so building new reliable sources of energy is essential to our competitiveness. Building new nuclear power plants also means the creation of quality jobs for Americans at a time when we need them the most. The Vogtle plant alone will create 5,000 new jobs and will have a tremendous positive impact for the many jobs in the nuclear energy supply chain. 

The amount of jobs this project is creating has not gone unnoticed by the public. In fact, on the day of the announcement, I took a phone call from a member of the public asking where he could find information online to apply for a job. I also saw comments like this one on Twitter:

If the overall goal is to create new jobs, make America more competitive and invest in an emission-free, domestic energy source, then this is the way to do it, said Secretary Chu on the tour:

“America has the opportunity to lead the world in clean energy technologies and to provide a foundation for our future prosperity. What you are doing here at Vogtle will help us compete in the global clean energy race and provide domestic, clean power to U.S. homes.”

During his visit to the site, Secretary Chu announced a funding opportunity of up to $10 million for research and development toward advanced nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies and also announced that the agency will be putting together an internal working group—chaired by Peter Lyons—to recommend a nuclear waste strategy to the secretary by the summer.

Continuing with his busy week, today the secretary testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee on the agency’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. (See the committee’s archived webcast and Secretary Chu’s testimony for more information.)

Photo: Southern Co.’s Tom Fanning and Energy Secretary Steven Chu on a tour of the Plant Vogtle site. Photo courtesy of Southern Co.

Read More

NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer Appears on PBS News Hour

Last night, NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer, Tony Pietrangelo, appeared on the PBS News Hour to discuss the future of the industry in the wake of the awarding of a COL to Plant Vogtle.

Read More

Running Out of Road in Belgium

Germany is a big country with a big problem when it  comes to closing its nuclear plants. Belgium is a smaller country with the same problem and somehow it’s still a pretty big one:

With just three years to go before Belgium is due to begin phasing out nuclear power, the country is still grappling with basic questions about its plans, including whether the 2015 deadline has to be adjusted to ensure electricity supplies remain reliable.

To be honest, if you want to close nuclear plants, you have to prepare for the loss of a lot of electricity and the very real possibility that the price to customers will go up, in some cases considerably. Belgium hasn’t prepared for any of this.

Melchior Wathelet, the country's new state secretary for energy, said in an interview that a study currently being prepared, for presentation by July, will assess whether there is "an alternative that would guarantee the security of supply at an acceptable price and respecting the environment."

If it were the U.S., one might poke up one’s hand and say, “Natural gas!” But that’s not a very good option for Belgium because it would likely get the gas from Russia – the whole reason, I’d guess, the phrase “security of supply” is in that statement.

Once you’ve eliminated natural gas, the answer to Mr. Wathelet’s conundrum is that Belgium will have to make an unattractive decision – accept higher electricity rates via imported sources – such as nuclear energy from France – or flip the switch on some of the shuttered coal plants.

But:

"I will say that I am getting out of [nuclear] only when I am sure I have an alternative ready," Mr. Wathelet said. Nuclear power accounts for roughly 55% of Belgium's electricity production.

Gulp! An alternative to 55 percent of your electricity production? And fast? Good luck, Mr. Wathelet.

We’ve said several times that nuclear energy is not a trap for the unwary – you don’t have to be wedded to it however much good it has done for your energy profile – but perhaps we should amend that. Nuclear energy is a trap for bad policy makers because the atom produces a lot of emission-free electricity for not very much money. (New facilities are relatively expensive to build but exceedingly inexpensive to run. As soon as you’ve paid off your fixed costs, gravy.) Countries reap the benefits with happier electricity customers – who are not paying as much as their non-nuclear neighbors and are doing their bit to combat climate change.

I genuinely don’t get why the Germans and Belgians would make  decisions that are likely to cause at least some social harm. I understand the German anxiety caused by Chernobyl colored its view of Fukushima, but I also know that that fear didn’t amount to anything. With Belgium, it was a bill blithely passed in 2003 to shut the plants after 40 years of operation – with the idea of what to replace them with kicked down the road like an old can.

Belgium is now out of road – and holding a can full of coal.

If the Germans and Belgians had behaved with any sense of responsibility, they might not have gotten into such an awful situation – and might still leave nuclear energy behind, though perhaps in a more orderly way and with further thought behind it.

---

What a difference a little time and cooler heads can make:

After last year’s disaster at Fukushima, many forecast the death of the nuclear power industry as countries jumped out of this potent fuel for other alternatives. Some looked for fossil fuels to play a bigger role in electricity production, while others predicted greater dependence on clean tech products such as wind and solar instead. While both of these types have increased somewhat in importance, nuclear power doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon, at least in some markets.

From Christine Whitman and Patrick Moore:

The United States has taken an important step toward efficiently meeting the country's rising electricity demand by ensuring a greater supply of clean, safe nuclear power.

With plans in place in Georgia for the construction of the next generation of nuclear energy facilities, this industry expansion will promote economic prosperity and continued development of a sustainable clean energy source. We need a cost-efficient, low-carbon solution to the nation's increasing electricity demand- projected to rise 24 percent by 2035. Expanding nuclear energy as part of the mix of electricity generation options is necessary to meeting our nation's growing power needs cleanly and cost-effectively.

From The Trenton (N.J.) Times:

How can we best provide energy for New Jersey’s economic expansion? The answer is nuclear power — and building a new plant to capitalize on nuclear power’s economic and environmental benefits. Such a plant can supply large amounts of affordable power from a small amount of fuel all day, every day, without polluting the air or loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

This one almost goes over the top – but in a good way.

A quick look at the mid-Atlantic region and around the country shows that the revival of nuclear power is picking up steam and public support.

Some of this is reaction to Southern Co. getting a license to build two new reactors at Plant Vogtle – but some of what I’ve seen has just seemed free-floating support for the atom. Appreciated.

The Tihange facility in Belgium.

Read More

On Vogtle: Reaction and News Coverage

The importance of the license granted (or virtually so, as the Commission technically authorized issuance of the license, but did not issue the license itself) to Southern Co. to build two reactors on its  Plant Vogtle site in Georgia is quite real – I noticed that the New York Times and Washington Post put on their first pages that it might happen today.

That’s anticipation for you.

Well, it did happen today – well, the NRC authorized it to happen. A little confusing, but as we’ll see, it’s largely treated as the big event.

Here is NEI’s President and CEO Marv Fertel:

This is a historic day. Today’s licensing action sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy as a key component of a low-carbon energy future that is central to job creation, diversity of electricity supply and energy security. The Nuclear Energy Institute congratulates Southern Company, the Shaw Group, Westinghouse Electric and other project participants on this exciting achievement.

Read more here.

From Southern Co.’s President and CEO Tom Fanning – he’s on video in the post below this one:

“This is a monumental accomplishment for Southern Company, Georgia Power, our partners and the nuclear industry,” said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Thomas A. Fanning. “We are committed to bringing these units online to deliver clean, safe and reliable energy to our customers. The project is on track, and our targets related to cost and schedule are achievable.”

The company expects to deliver to customers more than $1 billion in benefits from the Department of Energy loan guarantees, production tax credits and recovering financing costs during construction.

Georgia Power expects Unit 3 to begin operating in 2016 and Unit 4 in 2017.”

More here.

From Shaw Group’s Chairman, President and CEO J.M. Bernhard:

“Shaw congratulates Southern on this major milestone for the Vogtle project, the first new U.S. nuclear construction commercial power project in more than 30 years,” said J.M. Bernhard Jr., Shaw’s chairman, president and chief executive officer.

“Shaw is proud to be part of such a historic project. Not only is this milestone another step forward in continuing to provide safe, clean and reliable energy for the future, but the project also will create thousands of jobs and provide numerous long-term benefits for the Georgia community. Shaw anticipates hiring approximately 3,500 employees during construction of the new units at Vogtle, with thousands of more jobs created as a result of construction and operation of the reactors,” said Mr. Bernhard.

More here.

From Westinghouse’s President and CEO Aris Candris:

"Westinghouse congratulates Southern Nuclear on the approval of its combined construction and operating license (COL) for Plant Vogtle by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"The granting of this COL is yet another important step in constructing the next generation of new nuclear plants in the United States.  The thorough and rigorous COL review, combined with the recent AP1000® design certification help to ensure Southern and its stakeholders of receiving greater levels of safety, increased project certainty and years of reliable electricity generation.  Additionally, these plants will contribute significantly to the local, regional and national economies by creating and sustaining thousands of jobs.”

More here.

---

Let’s look at some news coverage.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve the project. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who has supported the project throughout the process, dissented, saying he was concerned that the reactors would not meet certain safety requirements put in place since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi accident.

"Significant safety enhancements have already been recommended as a result of learning the lessons from Fukushima, and there is still more work ahead of us. Knowing this, I cannot support issuing these licenses as if Fukushima never happened," Jaczko said.

The Augusta Chronicle. Augusta is the largest town near the Vogtle facility – I reckon a fair number of its workers live in Augusta:

Fellow commissioners expressed confidence that safety recommendations made since the Japan crisis will be properly implemented.

“There is no amnesia, individually or collectively,” commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki said of the NRC’s attention to lessons learned from Fukushima.

Newshounds. Always after conflict. The Chronicle gets a detail right that most other papers missed:

The license, which could be issued within 10 days, according to NRC staffers, will lead to the construction of the first AP1000 modular reactors in the U.S., creating a workforce expected to peak at about 3,500 during the next three years, with total job creation estimated at 5,000.

Symbolically, today’s the day, but practically, the license will be prepared by the NRC staff and issued inside a couple of weeks. Southern Co. cannot proceed without it, but now they know it’s coming. Good for writer Rob Pavey for picking that up.

The Chronicle has a page with stories about Vogtle. My favorite one was:

Twin brothers Abner and Allen DeLaigle can remember the flood of workers and money that inundated Burke County when Plant Vogtle first rose from the ground decades ago.

“We had a store, and a restaurant, just down from the front gate,” said Allen DeLaigle, “We also had a camper park with 380 spaces — and we stayed full for 10 years.”

During that era [meaning the 70s], the mammoth project lured 14,000 workers to the remote banks of the Savannah River, where the demand for housing, food and other commodities was so intense that their restaurant bustled seven days a week.

Sounds like a gold rush town. Wonder if they had a dance hall and a Marshal.

I looked at the Waynesboro paper, the True Citizen, (Waynesboro is the town nearest to Vogtle likely to have a paper), but it puts its content behind a pay wall. We may never know how they report it in Waynesboro, except that the headline is: High Expectations.

The Washington Post Story is here and the New York Times story is here. Both relegate it to the business pages. Better to stay local on this one, because this is really big news in that part of Georgia. I come from Georgia myself, so perhaps there’s a personal angle too and a bit of home state pride.

Plant Vogtle clears land.

Read More

On An Historic Occasion

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that it has approved Southern Nuclear's combined construction and operating license (COL) for the two-reactor Plant Vogtle expansion in Georgia. Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, will build two Westinghouse Electric Co. AP1000 reactors at the site near Augusta, Ga.

In the following video, Southern Co.'s Tom Fanning discusses the historic approval of its license - the first since 1978 - to build and operate two new reactors:

Read More