Skip to main content

A Few Updates on New Reactor Projects

Summer Nuclear Units 2 and 3 Yesterday, SCANA held its Spring 2010 analyst meeting which provided an update on the progress of Summer nuclear units 2 & 3. Among the wealth of new pictures (pdf) and stats, the biggest pieces of news are that the project is slightly under budget and may come in almost $1B less than planned once completed (still early though). Here’s Steve Byrne (pdf) - SCANA Corp.’s Executive VP and Chief Nuclear Officer (p. 26):

Quick cost update; this is a total project cost which includes for us escalation and contingencies. So generally our contract was negotiated in 2007 dollars, here what you're seeing are escalated numbers [chart below]. The project to-date should have spent about a little over $1 billion, we spent a little under $1 billion. You can see that the project budget is about 10.6 based on the current escalation factors; we think we're going to come in at about 9.8.

Those numbers are going to change. I don't get too excited about them dropping or raising a little bit; those are going to change as the project goes forward. But what it says is that our current projections based on what's called a Handy-Whitman Index for inflation, would yield a result that's a little bit lower than what the budget is, so that's a positive sign.

SCANA - nuclear cost projections

On top of SCANA’s presentation, the owners of the two planned units at South Texas Project completed a major labor agreement:

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (NINA), the nuclear development company jointly owned by NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and Toshiba Corporation, has announced an agreement for the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO to provide skilled union labor to construct the two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP).

Approximately 6,000 people will work up to 25 million hours to build the new units, STP 3&4, which are located about 100 miles southwest of Houston in Matagorda County, Texas.

A 2010 economic study conducted by The Perryman Group, a Texas economic and financial analysis firm, estimates construction of STP 3&4 will generate more than $15 billion in business activity in America as well as $3.6 billion in spending and $600 million in local and state revenues annually once the two units are operational.

Looks like the industry is growing steadily along!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Pretty amazing stuff at Summer. They look serious and far along. Westinghouse appears to be the big winner in the US at this stage.

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…