Skip to main content

TVA, Chattanooga Economic Choo Choo

Quite a media coup today for the TVA, with an A1 above the fold story in the Chattanooga Times on the nuclear industry's impact on the local economy:
Beyond the temporary plant construction jobs, Tennessee is eager to land new manufacturers to supply the nuclear industry, state Economic and Community Development Commissioner Matt Kisber said.

“One of the goals that the governor has established for the long-term diversification of our economy is to make the energy industry grow roots in our state and really become as important to Tennessee as our automotive industry over the next decade or two,” Mr. Kisber said.

Already, Alstom Turbo Machines Group is preparing to invest $280 million to make turbines for nuclear plants in one of the old plants once owned by Combustion Engineering. Westinghouse Electric also is planning to buy and renovate an abandoned plant in the Centre South Riverport and add 50 more employees over the next year to expand its nuclear services business.

Alstom, a Swiss-based energy giant, plans to hire 350 workers to supplement its nearby 600-employee Chattanooga plant that makes boiler and tubular components for coal-fired power plants.

“We see that nuclear power is already coming back and will come back even stronger in the United States,” Philippe Joubert, president of Alstom Power Systems, recently told Greenwire, a publication of E&E Publishing.

The editors, eager to show off their multimedia chops, have included in their sidebar material: a sound clip from TVA President Jack Bailey, a PDF detailing the status of new plants in the U.S., and a video of a training exercise in the Watts Bar control room simulator.

Comments

gunter said…
TVA alone racked up a $28 billion debt in cost overruns for its nuclear power projects--more evidence that it takes government not markets to venture back into nuclear power construction.

As far as the so-called "comeback" the financial forecasts continue to project construction cost ever higher.

See >>>>>>
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-3-may-jun/Financial_Front_Prices.pdf <<<

onward into the fog...
KenG said…
It must be depressing to always live in the past.
Bill said…
TVA's nuclear construction program was a financial disaster in the 1970's and 1980's, for a variety of reasons. Standardized pre-certified designs and the new COL process should eliminate many of those reasons. TVA is also not trying to build 17 units of at least 4 different types this time around.

Indeed, construction costs are rising due to the increase in commodity costs. This is due to increased demand for raw materials combined with the falling value of the dollar on the world market. These cost concerns apply to pretty much any construction project, not just nuclear power plants. This is briefly mentioned in the Times-Free Press articles, but ignored by the nay-sayers.

As for Gunter's link, I'd like to see the basis for the O&M costs of 18 cents per kWh after paying down the construction costs. I believe that's about a factor of ten higher than current plants.

The mention of LNG as a cost-competitive alternative is also nonsense, as these costs are rising right along with oil. Before long, we'll be sending billions of dollars to Russia every month for LNG, just like we're reliant on Venezuela and the Middle East for oil today.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…