Skip to main content

A Few Updates on New Reactor Projects

By

Summer Nuclear Units 2 and 3 Yesterday, SCANA held its Spring 2010 analyst meeting which provided an update on the progress of Summer nuclear units 2 & 3. Among the wealth of new pictures (pdf) and stats, the biggest pieces of news are that the project is slightly under budget and may come in almost $1B less than planned once completed (still early though). Here’s Steve Byrne (pdf) - SCANA Corp.’s Executive VP and Chief Nuclear Officer (p. 26):

Quick cost update; this is a total project cost which includes for us escalation and contingencies. So generally our contract was negotiated in 2007 dollars, here what you're seeing are escalated numbers [chart below]. The project to-date should have spent about a little over $1 billion, we spent a little under $1 billion. You can see that the project budget is about 10.6 based on the current escalation factors; we think we're going to come in at about 9.8.

Those numbers are going to change. I don't get too excited about them dropping or raising a little bit; those are going to change as the project goes forward. But what it says is that our current projections based on what's called a Handy-Whitman Index for inflation, would yield a result that's a little bit lower than what the budget is, so that's a positive sign.

SCANA - nuclear cost projections

On top of SCANA’s presentation, the owners of the two planned units at South Texas Project completed a major labor agreement:

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and Toshiba Corporation, has announced an agreement for the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO to provide skilled union labor to construct the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).

Approximately 6,000 people will work up to 25 million hours to build the new units, STP 3&4, which are located about 100 miles southwest of Houston in Matagorda County, Texas.

…

A 2010 economic study conducted by The Perryman Group, a Texas economic and financial analysis firm, estimates construction of STP 3&4 will generate more than $15 billion in business activity in America as well as $3.6 billion in spending and $600 million in local and state revenues annually once the two units are operational.

Looks like the industry is growing steadily along!

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Pretty amazing stuff at Summer. They look serious and far along. Westinghouse appears to be the big winner in the US at this stage.
April 12, 2010 at 5:33 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