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.

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?
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!
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.
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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin