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

Anonymous 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...
Anonymous said…
It must be depressing to always live in the past.
Anonymous 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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...