Skip to main content

FPL Finds New Nuclear Units at Turkey Point Still Economical

By

Last week, Florida Power & Light, subsidiary of NextEra Energy, submitted their annual filings on the need for two more nuclear units at its Turkey Point station. The units are projected to come online in 2022 and 2023. Below are a few highlights from one of the filings (pdf), p. 4:

assuming the same medium fuel cost, “Environmental II” scenario, FPL expects that Turkey Point 6 & 7 will:

  • Provide estimated fuel cost savings for FPL’s customers of approximately $1.07 billion (nominal) in the first full year of operation;
  • Provide estimated fuel cost savings for FPL’s customers over the life of the project of approximately $75 billion (nominal);
  • Diversify FPL’s fuel sources by decreasing reliance on natural gas by approximately 13% beginning in the first full year of operation;
  • Reduce annual fossil fuel usage by the equivalent of 28 million barrels of oil or 177 million mmBTU of natural gas; and
  • Reduce C02 emissions by an estimated 287 million tons over the life of the project, which is the equivalent of operating FPL’s entire generating system with zero CO2 emissions for 7 years.

And on page 11:

As described by Dr. Sim, Turkey Point 6 & 7 also continues to be a cost-effective addition for FPL’s customers, taking into account all updated assumptions. FPL’s analysis of Turkey Point 6 & 7 was performed by calculating a “breakeven capital cost” - the capital cost amount FPL could spend on new nuclear and breakeven with what it would spend for a combined cycle resource addition on a CPVRR [cumulative present value of revenue requirements] basis - and comparing it to its current project non-binding cost estimate range. The breakeven costs are higher than FPL’s cost estimate (i.e., the results are favorable) in six out of seven fuel and environmental compliance cost scenarios analyzed, and in the seventh, the breakeven costs are within the non-binding cost estimate range.

Accordingly, Turkey Point 6 & 7 continues to be an economically sound choice for FPL’s customers. Additionally, as explained by Mr. Scroggs, the Turkey Point 6 & 7 project remains feasible with respect to other, non-economic considerations.

For their detailed analysis, see FPL’s testimony from Steven Sim (pdf). In it, you can find their updated capital cost assumptions which are $3,483/kW to $5,063/kW in 2011 dollars (page 49 of 107). As well, pasted below are their assumed costs for natural gas in nominal dollars (page 41 of 107).

image 

The capital costs for a new nuclear unit and the fuel price of natural gas are two key factors in determining the competitiveness of nuclear. Even with a huge glut of gas in the country, new nuclear is still found to be economical.
Labels:

Comments

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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 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