Skip to main content

New Nuclear Plants Okayed in Florida

A Florida regulatory agency, the Public Service Commission, has unanimously endorsed Progress Energy's proposal to build two new nuclear reactors on a site in Levy County. If approved by state and federal regulators, the two reactors could begin operations by 2016-2017.

Earlier this year, the Public Service Commission expressed unanimous consent on Florida Power & Light's request to build two new reactor units at its Turkey Point plant in Miami-Dade County.

Comments

Anonymous said…
$14B (according to Platts) is a lot of money for 2.2 GW of electricity. That is $6363 per kW installed. Not very long ago, people used to cower in fear if someone mentioned $3000 per kW. I am extremely pro-nuclear, but it is starting to look way too expensive at these price levels. $14B can easily escalate to $20B.
Funky said…
Check out the Rocky Mountain Institute website for more on the fallacies of nuclear power:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

Since the Keystone findings, new nuclear plants’ uniquely rapid capital-cost escalation,
far from abating, has accelerated. The same top trade journal summarizes how the latest analyses,
including one by Keystone coauthor Jim Harding (former director of strategic planning at
Seattle City Light), have found the Keystone report’s lower cost range of $3,600/kW “no longer
believable” and its upper range of $4,000/kW “probably low.”27 Harding’s estimate of total current
construction costs (2007 $ including interest during construction) of ~$4,300–4,550/kW
matches prospective customer Constellation’s published, then redacted, estimate of
~$4,300/kW.28 That’s slightly above Standard & Poor’s (S&P’s) May 200729 and American Electric
Power’s August 2007 estimates of ~$4,000/kW, but well below Moody’s October 2007 estimate30
of ~$5,000–6,000/kW—which Moody’s called admittedly “only marginally better than a
guess” but still solid grounds for caution.
By early 2008, industry estimates were creeping even above Moody’s dismaying range.
In September 2007, Lew Hay, CEO of FPL Group, said the total cost of a new nuclear plant (all
in mixed future dollars as-spent) could be ~$5,000–7,000/kW, or “on the order of magnitude of
$13 to $14 billion” for a two-unit plant. Yet just five months later, FPL31 filed formal cost estimates
up to nearly twice that high—$12–24 billion (again in mixed future dollars) for a 2.2–
3.04-GW two-unit plant, equivalent to ~$4,200–6,100/kW in 2007.
Anonymous said…
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_
AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
Try again :>)
David Bradish said…
funky, I guess you missed the whole debate on why RMI's paper you just referenced is junk. Here's a link on why it's junk if you're interested in learning something.

Anon, no doubt nuclear plants are expensive to build. Many utilities, however, have found that all electricity technologies have become substantially more expensive as well and that new nuclear plants are still economical.
Joe Gimenez said…
Hi:
I'm doing research for a paper. Could someone tell me whether these plants are the earliest new plants to come on line in the U.S.? How about worldwide?

Is there an official report on this somewhere.
thanks,

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …