Skip to main content

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

By

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.

Labels:

Comments

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?
December 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM
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.
December 18, 2009 at 12:26 PM
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!
December 18, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Author 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

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

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.
December 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said…
It is interesting to remember the reason STP owners switched from a GEH ABWR to a Toshiba ABWR was to save money.
December 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM
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.
January 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more