Skip to main content

TVA Building Watts Bar 2 and Building Up the Tennessee Valley

220px-Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_StationHere’s some good news:

The Tennessee Valley Authority board in the US has approved continuing with construction of the second generating unit at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant located on the Tennessee River near Spring City following a revised estimate.

The estimate presented to TVA in early April, revealed the project requires an additional $1.5bn to $2bn to complete, bringing the total cost to complete the unit at nearly $4.5bn, with the most likely estimate of $4.2bn.

Now, it may seem counterintuitive to splash out that kind of money – one might call it the fixed cost issue. The fixed cost of building a large industrial plant – much less a nuclear facility – is fantastically high, at least if one is trying to raise the money for it in a fairly short time. But the variable costs of running the plant are relatively low. If the plant runs for 40 years – as the current generation has done – and then goes another 20 years – then that plant cost can generate electricity quite economically even given the fixed costs involved in building the plant.

Here’s a 2011 assessment of how that works out:

  • Advanced nuclear  - $113.90 per megawatt hour
  • Advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration - $136.20 per megawatt hour
  • Solar PV - $210.70 per megawatt hour
  • Offshore wind - $243.20 per megawatt hour
  • Onshore wind - $97 per megawatt hour (though Southeastern states such as Tennessee are not good candidates for this.)
  • Solar thermal - $311.80 per megawatt hour.

And that takes into consideration that renewable energy sources have relatively low fixed costs. That’s not a case of putting the fix in for nuclear energy – there are economics plusses and minuses for any energy source.

Electric companies have to balance the need to make money with the more important need of providing electricity to everyone regardless of financial wherewithal. Nuclear energy and coal have always provided a strong argument here – expensive fixed costs, very low variable costs. If nuclear has an edge over coal, it’s that it doesn’t produce carbon emissions.

---

To me, it is even more interesting that TVA continues to pursue economic development in the Tennessee Valley. This was one of its missions after its creation during the great depression and its seems only appropriate to build on its good work during the great recession:

In keeping with its economic development mission, TVA is enhancing the Valley Investment Initiative, an incentive program that rewards industries that commit to locate, stay and invest in the Valley region, Thomas said.

“Beginning in 2009, companies participating in the Valley Investment Initiative have announced five-year plans to invest a total of $8.2 billion in their operations, keep 55,000 jobs in the region and create another 17,000 jobs. Those jobs represent almost $16 billion in wages for Valley residents and communities.”

So if you have a business idea that requires a little light manufacturing, there you go. You provide the structure, TVA the infrastructure.

Watts Bar. Unit 1 has been on-line since 1996 and supplies electricity to about 750,000 people. Unit 2 is the one TVA will now be completing.

Comments

seth said…
Is there anybody at NEI with the technical competence to tell us how TVA's $3.5B/Gw ends up as the EIA's Big Oil produced and absurd 14 cents a kwh? Even the beginner power engineer would arrive at a number around 4 cents.

Who do you guys work for anyway?
gmax137 said…
The piece says
"Here’s a 2011 assessment of how that works out:

Advanced nuclear - $113.90 per megawatt hour
Advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration - $136.20 per megawatt hour
Solar PV - $210.70 per megawatt hour ... etcetera"

What do these numbers represent? NEI's D Bradish Energy Market Report last week showed power trading at $20 to $40 per MW-hour.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…