Skip to main content

Economic Benefits of North Anna Power Station

One of the tools NEI provides the public is a series of economic benefit reports. Created in collaboration with the plant owners, these reports show how the presence of a plants rebound in many positive ways throughout its state and community. Nuclear plants not only provide clean, low-cost energy but are veritable economic engines for their regions.

Here's the press release. At the end is the link to the current report:

Economic Impact of North Anna Power Station Tops $700 Million Yearly in Virginia, Study Finds

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 10, 2008—As a reliable provider of more than 20 percent of Virginia’s electricity, the North Anna Power Station generates more than $710 million in economic benefits to the state, according to a new economic analysis of the facility.

The direct economic benefit of electricity production at North Anna’s two reactors is $600 million. The secondary economic benefits to the state are another $111 million, according to the analysis.

The power station is “an integral part of the local economy,” employing nearly 1,000 people, the report states. The direct and indirect compensation from the power plant – in the form of employee compensation and labor income for other workers within the state – totals more than $150 million annually.

In addition, power station owner Dominion pays approximately $11 million in property taxes annually and makes more than $23 million in purchases in Virginia.

The economic analysis was produced by the Nuclear Energy Institute. It is the 12th economic impact analysis that NEI has conducted of nuclear power plants across the nation, and is the second analysis conducted for Dominion, which is one of NEI’s member companies. NEI released its economic impact analysis of Dominion’s Millstone power station in Connecticut in 2003.

The studies use a nationally recognized Impact Analysis for Planning model that was developed for the federal government by RTI International of North Carolina’s Research Triangle.

“The North Anna power station is vital to the economies of Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania counties,” said Richard Myers, NEI vice president of policy development. “It is among the largest employers in that area of the state and has consistently been among the nuclear industry’s best-managed and best-operated facilities. There is enormous value to Virginians in terms of electricity production and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic benefit from the North Anna plant.”

North Anna’s two reactors generated more than 15 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electricity in 2006, providing about one-fifth of the electricity generated in Virginia each year.

The power station’s average electricity production cost (encompassing fuel and operations and maintenance expenses) was 1.38 cents/kwh in 2006, about one-half of the average production cost of 2.74 cents/kwh for electricity generators in the Virginia-Carolinas subregion of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council power region.

The North Anna station’s average production cost is significantly lower than the regional average for electricity generated by coal (2.99 cents/kwh), renewables (4.37 cents/kwh) and natural gas (7.89 cents/kwh).

“North Anna’s low production costs help keep electricity prices down in Virginia,” states the report, which estimates that average electricity costs in the region would have risen 12 percent, to more than three cents/kwh, if the nuclear plant’s electricity were replaced with power from a combined-cycle natural gas plant.

The study also finds that North Anna’s 960 employees generally have higher-paying jobs than most workers in the north Piedmont section of Virginia where the plant has operated since the late 1970s.

“Full-time North Anna employees who live in Louisa County earn, on average, about $60,400 a year. This is seven percent higher than the average earnings of workers in the county – about $56,400 a year,” the report states.

Including labor, North Anna’s expenditures for products and services in the three counties surrounding the power plant – Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania – totaled more than $58 million in 2006. Statewide expenditures for products and services totaled $138 million.

The report details North Anna’s economic impact as either a direct effect – such as the value of the electricity produced and direct spending by the plant – or a secondary “ripple” effect that includes subsequent spending impacts from the initial distribution of resources.

The direct effects at the county level for output and labor income are $658 million, with direct effects to the state and nation of $714.3 million and $714.7 million respectively.

The combined direct and ripple effects at the county level are $673 million, with combined economic benefits to Virginia of $864 million and to the nation of $1.15 billion.

For every dollar of output from the North Anna station, the local economy produces $1.02, while Virginia’s economy produces $1.19 and the United States’ economy produces $1.56, the study determined.

The full report is accessible on NEI’s Web site at: http://www.nei.org/financialcenter/economic_benefits_studies/.

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 …