Skip to main content

FPL Finds New Nuclear Units at Turkey Point Still Economical

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.

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 …

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…