Skip to main content

NRG’s Recent Cost Estimate Increases for STP 3&4 Due to a Weaker Dollar?

By now I’m sure most readers here have heard that NRG’s cost estimates to build two new reactors at South Texas Project increased around $4 billion just recently. Apparently quite a bit of the increase was due to a weaker dollar. From the Wall Street Journal:

Dollar weakness helped drive up cost estimates for two new reactors NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) is planning in Texas with Toshiba Corp. An NRG executive said last month the cost of equipment and materials from Japan climbed 13% to an estimated $2.5 billion compared with a 2007 estimate, mostly due to declines in the dollar.

Currency risk is just one variable for developers. Scana and Southern already have taken steps to eliminate the risk by using dollar-dominated contracts. For other projects, currency fluctuation typically is viewed as part of the larger issue of construction costs. Developers are trying to balance the massive cost and lengthy construction timetable with a tricky outlook for power demand and prices. Additionally, any decision by the U.S. government to place limits on carbon-dioxide emissions could heavily impact the economics of nuclear projects, since reactors become more competitive when a cost is placed on CO2.

It’ll be interesting to see what NRG and Toshiba agree on for the new cost estimates which were asked to be determined by the end of this year.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
I have heard very low numbers for the costs of essentially the same reactors in Japan ~ $1.4B. Anyone know if that is correct. If so, why is it SO much more here?
David Bradish said…
Probably a number of factors. The $1.4B you cite I'm guessing is for one unit, whereas the STP estimate is for two. As well, the $1.4B number was probably for a unit that came online more than a decade ago before commodities and labor costs increased dramatically. Also, I think the size of the ABWRs in Japan are smaller than the ones proposed in the US. And as the WSJ found, currency rates make a difference in costs. Those are just some guesses, though.
Anonymous said…
You numbers are correct, but not $1.4B per plant, $1.4B per gigawatt. So, a large 1600MW plant would be a little more. This was for gen-iii plants they built in the late `90s, not even the improved gen-iii plus models. Let's get our act together and start building electric cars, trains and nuclear plants like Japan!
uvdiv said…
Here are recent numbers Shika #2, an ABWR built over 2001-2006. It is the same reactor as the Texas project - 1,300 MWe ABWR (although oddly the IAEA source says 1,200 MWe gross, not sure about the discrepancy). The total project cost was 370 billion yen, according to table 3B from

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

This is a nominal $3,033/kWe at current exchange rates. The table gives it as $2,280/kWe PPP-adjusted, or $2,350/kWe overnight cost.
Anonymous said…
It is interesting to remember the reason STP owners switched from a GEH ABWR to a Toshiba ABWR was to save money.
Anonymous said…
The switch to Toshiba was more about terms and conditions than about saving money. GE just didn't want to take any risk. Perhaps MSNBC is a true reflection of company policy?

Of course the equity participation from Toshiba (half a billion) was part of it.

One predictable consequence of the devalued dollar will be fewer imports and more domestic production. American pipe, labor, steel, valves, and engineers got cheaper. Expect more work on STP to be performed in the US and less in Japan.

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 …