Skip to main content

FPL Finds New Nuclear Units at Turkey Point Still Economical

Last week, Florida Power & Light, subsidiary of NextEra Energy, submitted their annual filings on the need for two more nuclear units at its Turkey Point station. The units are projected to come online in 2022 and 2023. Below are a few highlights from one of the filings (pdf), p. 4:

assuming the same medium fuel cost, “Environmental II” scenario, FPL expects that Turkey Point 6 & 7 will:

  • Provide estimated fuel cost savings for FPL’s customers of approximately $1.07 billion (nominal) in the first full year of operation;
  • Provide estimated fuel cost savings for FPL’s customers over the life of the project of approximately $75 billion (nominal);
  • Diversify FPL’s fuel sources by decreasing reliance on natural gas by approximately 13% beginning in the first full year of operation;
  • Reduce annual fossil fuel usage by the equivalent of 28 million barrels of oil or 177 million mmBTU of natural gas; and
  • Reduce C02 emissions by an estimated 287 million tons over the life of the project, which is the equivalent of operating FPL’s entire generating system with zero CO2 emissions for 7 years.

And on page 11:

As described by Dr. Sim, Turkey Point 6 & 7 also continues to be a cost-effective addition for FPL’s customers, taking into account all updated assumptions. FPL’s analysis of Turkey Point 6 & 7 was performed by calculating a “breakeven capital cost” - the capital cost amount FPL could spend on new nuclear and breakeven with what it would spend for a combined cycle resource addition on a CPVRR [cumulative present value of revenue requirements] basis - and comparing it to its current project non-binding cost estimate range. The breakeven costs are higher than FPL’s cost estimate (i.e., the results are favorable) in six out of seven fuel and environmental compliance cost scenarios analyzed, and in the seventh, the breakeven costs are within the non-binding cost estimate range.

Accordingly, Turkey Point 6 & 7 continues to be an economically sound choice for FPL’s customers. Additionally, as explained by Mr. Scroggs, the Turkey Point 6 & 7 project remains feasible with respect to other, non-economic considerations.

For their detailed analysis, see FPL’s testimony from Steven Sim (pdf). In it, you can find their updated capital cost assumptions which are $3,483/kW to $5,063/kW in 2011 dollars (page 49 of 107). As well, pasted below are their assumed costs for natural gas in nominal dollars (page 41 of 107).

image 

The capital costs for a new nuclear unit and the fuel price of natural gas are two key factors in determining the competitiveness of nuclear. Even with a huge glut of gas in the country, new nuclear is still found to be economical.

Comments

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 …