Skip to main content

NRG’s Recent Cost Estimate Increases for STP 3&4 Due to a Weaker Dollar?

By now I’m sure most readers here have heard that NRG’s cost estimates to build two new reactors at South Texas Project increased around $4 billion just recently. Apparently quite a bit of the increase was due to a weaker dollar. From the Wall Street Journal:

Dollar weakness helped drive up cost estimates for two new reactors NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) is planning in Texas with Toshiba Corp. An NRG executive said last month the cost of equipment and materials from Japan climbed 13% to an estimated $2.5 billion compared with a 2007 estimate, mostly due to declines in the dollar.

Currency risk is just one variable for developers. Scana and Southern already have taken steps to eliminate the risk by using dollar-dominated contracts. For other projects, currency fluctuation typically is viewed as part of the larger issue of construction costs. Developers are trying to balance the massive cost and lengthy construction timetable with a tricky outlook for power demand and prices. Additionally, any decision by the U.S. government to place limits on carbon-dioxide emissions could heavily impact the economics of nuclear projects, since reactors become more competitive when a cost is placed on CO2.

It’ll be interesting to see what NRG and Toshiba agree on for the new cost estimates which were asked to be determined by the end of this year.


SteveK9 said…
I have heard very low numbers for the costs of essentially the same reactors in Japan ~ $1.4B. Anyone know if that is correct. If so, why is it SO much more here?
David Bradish said…
Probably a number of factors. The $1.4B you cite I'm guessing is for one unit, whereas the STP estimate is for two. As well, the $1.4B number was probably for a unit that came online more than a decade ago before commodities and labor costs increased dramatically. Also, I think the size of the ABWRs in Japan are smaller than the ones proposed in the US. And as the WSJ found, currency rates make a difference in costs. Those are just some guesses, though.
Anonymous said…
You numbers are correct, but not $1.4B per plant, $1.4B per gigawatt. So, a large 1600MW plant would be a little more. This was for gen-iii plants they built in the late `90s, not even the improved gen-iii plus models. Let's get our act together and start building electric cars, trains and nuclear plants like Japan!
uvdiv said…
Here are recent numbers Shika #2, an ABWR built over 2001-2006. It is the same reactor as the Texas project - 1,300 MWe ABWR (although oddly the IAEA source says 1,200 MWe gross, not sure about the discrepancy). The total project cost was 370 billion yen, according to table 3B from

This is a nominal $3,033/kWe at current exchange rates. The table gives it as $2,280/kWe PPP-adjusted, or $2,350/kWe overnight cost.
Anonymous said…
It is interesting to remember the reason STP owners switched from a GEH ABWR to a Toshiba ABWR was to save money.
Anonymous said…
The switch to Toshiba was more about terms and conditions than about saving money. GE just didn't want to take any risk. Perhaps MSNBC is a true reflection of company policy?

Of course the equity participation from Toshiba (half a billion) was part of it.

One predictable consequence of the devalued dollar will be fewer imports and more domestic production. American pipe, labor, steel, valves, and engineers got cheaper. Expect more work on STP to be performed in the US and less in Japan.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

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.


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…