Skip to main content

On the UC Berkeley Nuclear Study

By Eric McErlain
I'm sure many of you saw stories about a report yesterday out of UC Berkeley about nuclear energy and cost overruns:
The report is based on historical construction cost data. It does not reflect where the industry and the regulatory process are at today. While it cites many studies, including the MIT and University of Chicago, it has some notable omissions. For example, it does not provide any form of reason for the huge cost overruns in the 1980s, it does not explain or reference the new and improved licensing process, nor does it mention the extensive industry efforts relating to standardization.



The licensing process has been improved based on the lessons learned from the 1970s and 1980s. It now resolves safety issues before the start of construction. The standards for the combined license application will result in the designs to be essentially complete prior to starting construction. It provides for greater public participation.



The new licensing process and modern, modularized construction techniques will require a quantum leap in documentation, planning and scheduling compared with the construction of the 1960s, 70s and early 80s. This will alleviate many of the problems of the past, as will incorporating construction management lessons learned from overseas projects.



There is an inference in the report that Gen IV reactors could be better, but a failure to acknowledge that these designs are 15+ years away from commercial deployment in the US.



The report correctly emphasizes that the financial risks are critical. We know that, as do the industry's execs and Wall Street. The executives and boards of directors are not going to authorize the construction of new power plants if the generating costs are going to be 14cts/kWh.



The overall theme of its recommendations is that there should be more debate and look to Gen IV. We're beyond that. It's time to move forward, finalize cost estimates and start the review of license applications. There will be plenty of debate on the financials in the board rooms, across the tables on Wall Street and in the public arena once the first license applications are submitted.
Just another reason to stop by here first after you read the morning paper.
Labels:

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…
Two questions.

1. Why are Gen IV reactors necessarily 15 years away from commercial deployment?

2. What article or document are you quoting?
April 4, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more