Skip to main content

Savings in Georgia; AP Investigates, Finds Nothing

i_survived_the_virginia_earthquakeGeorgia Power is applying some price pressure on its Plant Vogtle project (where Peter Pepper picked a peck of peppers, apparently), as its ability to charge ratepayers a little bit more now saves a lot later.

Georgia Power has cut $18 million from its planned nuclear expansion project at Plant Vogtle, informing state utility regulators Wednesday that their cost for the project is now $6.09 billion.

Now, you may say that now or later, it’s the same amount, but not so.

The cost of Georgia Power’s portion of the project originally was approved for $6.4 billion but reduced to $6.09 billion after the utility was allowed to collect financing costs from customers. The $18 million in reductions stem from financing costs that were lowered “primarily as a result of changing in the timing of cash expenditures,” the report said.

Which means that the interest costs are declining because Georgia Power can pay as it goes on at least some of the activities associated with the two new reactors. A good deal for the ratepayers overall.

---

I understand that the Associated Press started its series on nuclear facilities with the best of intentions: after all, journalists are watchdogs and if the nuclear industry is to be taken to task, so be it. But the industry just hasn’t played along by dishing up the scandalous behavior such a story needs.

Let’s see what’s what:

The risk that an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought, 24 times as high in one case, according to an analysis of preliminary government data by The Associated Press.

That sounds bad, but consider that a number of plants just got shook around last week (and San Onofre in a recent California trembler) none the worse for wear. What the AP means here is a much bigger earthquake than what has occurred lately. But here’s the conclusion:

The average risk to U.S. reactors of core damage from a quake remains low, at one accident every 500 years, according to the AP analysis of NRC data.

Well, that’s taking the long way around. But maybe the NRC and industry aren’t doing anything to enhance earthquake safety.

Just how many nuclear power plants are more vulnerable won't be determined until all operators recalculate their seismic risk, based on geologists' new assessments -- which the agency plans to request later this year. The NRC on Thursday issued a draft of that request for public comment.

The review, launched well before the East Coast quake and the Japan nuclear disaster in March, marks the first complete update to seismic risk in years for the nation's 104 existing reactors, despite research showing greater hazards.

Well, that sounds responsible. Reports have emerged suggesting larger risks, so the NRC is reviewing what this might mean for the nuclear facilities.

Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion, the plant operator [meaning North Anna, which was near the epicenter of the Virginia earthquake], says the earlier estimate "remains sound because additional safety margin was built into the design when the station was built." The safety cushion would shrink, though, if the plant's risk is found to be greater.

Yes, and the safety margin would grow if the plant’s risk is found to be lesser.

This isn’t a case of the AP not providing information that is exculpatory. It’s that the industry and NRC are transparent enough that AP can’t make a viably shocking expose. As shown in the AP’s own story, the industry and NRC are responsive and clearly working with the seismic data – maybe not on the same timetable as the US Geologic Survey (one of AP’s “bombshells”) but none-the-less.

Sometimes less is more, but sometimes it really is just less. I was keenly interested in these AP articles – not that I expected to be shaken up but because I thought I ‘d spend more time disputing them - but they’ve turned out to be kind of a bust. No hanky-panky between regulators and regulated, no fuel rods found piled in a closet, no one sneaking uranium around in a suitcase – just companies and a regulator working through issues. But read it and judge for yourself. Don’t expect to gasp much, though.

NEI has an interesting face sheet on seismic safety issues here.

“I survived the Virginia earthquake,” it says. As did everyone else.

Comments

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…

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 …

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.

Huh?

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…