Skip to main content

Duke Energy COL for Levy County Nuclear Plant Still Alive Outside Cost Recovery

By Eric McErlain
We've been watching the wires pretty closely every since we caught wind of a potential announcement by Duke Energy about the proposed nuclear project in Levy County, Florida. So far, several outlets have incorrectly reported that the project has been permanently shelved.

It's too bad those reporters didn't bother reading the fine print of the Duke Energy press release concerning a wide-ranging settlement with the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) that went out about an hour ago (Bold emphasis mine):
In 2008, Duke Energy Florida announced plans to construct two 1,100-megawatt nuclear units in Levy County, Fla.

Duke Energy’s EPC agreement was based on the ability to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) combined construction and operating license (COL) by Jan. 1, 2014. As a result of delays by the NRC in issuing COLs for new nuclear plants, as well as increased uncertainty in cost recovery caused by recent legislative changes in Florida, Duke Energy will be terminating the EPC agreement for the proposed Levy nuclear project.

Although the proposed Levy nuclear project is no longer an option for meeting energy needs within the originally scheduled timeframe, Duke Energy Florida continues to regard the Levy site as a viable option for future nuclear generation and understands the importance of fuel diversity in creating a sustainable energy future. Because of this, the company will continue to pursue the COL outside of the nuclear cost recovery clause.

“We continue to believe that a balanced energy portfolio, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and state-of-the-art cleaner power plants are critical to securing Florida’s energy future, and nuclear energy should remain an option to meet Florida’s future energy needs,” Glenn said.
So, what we're looking at is a delay, not a cancellation, and regulatory preparation for a potential new plant will continue. Here's hoping that detail gets back into the coverage this evening.
Labels:

Comments

Brian Paddock said…
The plan to keep the COL application going is obviously a ploy to convince the PUC to let Duke keep the $1.5 Billon it has extracted from customers by pretending it will hold the money until the economics on nuclear power change -- which won't happen as efficiency and renewables get cheaper, better, and begin to fill the available space.
August 1, 2013 at 6:48 PM
SteveK9 said…
Everything is 'obvious' to a conspiracy theorist.
August 2, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Anonymous said…
Maybe, but this is not good news. The anti-nuke kooks will have a field day with any kind of cancellation news. And, no, "efficiency" and "renewables" won't cut it. They can't carry the load, never have, never will. Unreliables will be less attractive than nuclear. The only thing that will happen if Levy goes belly up will be burning more natural gas in FL, which means more GHG, more acidification of the oceans, more crap.
August 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Anonymous said…
Statements concerning which generation sources are needed to meet demand have become less compelling lately as demand has essentially stagnated or decreased in many parts of the country due to the poor economic conditions. Simply doing nothing is now a viable alternative until the economy ever starts growing again.

When I used to work at TVA our peak summer demand was 32,000MW, however now it is only 29,000MW due to so many industrial customers shutting down and other factors like energy efficiency. This fact is the direct cause of Wwatts Bar being delayed so signifigantly and Bellefonte being indeffinitely deffered. I would imagine stagnant power demand more than anything else is what is killing the "nuclear renaissance". The record low interest rates these days as a result of Quantetative Easing actually makes the financial aspects of a large capital project like nuclear much more appealing. Also, the poor job market favors large capital projects since companies have a much stronger bargaining position with the local unions when it comes to wages these days and construction worker wages are the majority of the cost of a new nuclear plant.
August 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said…
The key statement is "outside of cost recovery."

Do you really think that Duke shareholders are going to press forward with COL if they have to shoulder the expenses and can't charge ratepayers for the work?

I know you are suppose to support the industry but to claim that Duke is going to move forward outside of cost recovery undermines NEI's credibility.
August 2, 2013 at 12:39 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