TVA’s Watts Bar Unit 2 Achieves Commercial Operation
The plant is located on 1,700 acres on the northern end of the Chickamauga Reservoir near Spring City, in East Tennessee. Each unit produces about 1,150 megawatts of electricity—enough to service 650,000 homes—without creating any carbon emissions.
From TVA, Oct 19th, 2016:
SPRING CITY, Tenn. ― The nation’s first new nuclear generation in 20 years has officially entered commercial operation after the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Unit 2 successfully completed an extensive series of power ascension tests and reliably operated at full power for more than three weeks.
“TVA’s mission is to make life better in the Valley by providing reliable, low-cost energy, protecting our area’s natural resources and working to attract business and growth – all priorities simultaneously supported by the completion of Watts Bar Unit 2,” said Bill Johnson, TVA president and CEO.
“Watts Bar Unit 2 is a key part of our commitment to produce cleaner energy without sacrificing the reliability and low cost that draws both industry and residents to our area.”
The $4.7 billion capital construction project was completed on budget. The unit now moves to working asset status.
Watts Bar Unit 2 has already provided consumers across the Valley with more than 500 million kilowatt/hours of carbon-free energy during testing. It now joins six other operating TVA nuclear units to supply more than one third of the region’s generating capacity, and meeting the electric needs of more than 4.5 million homes.
Watts Bar, Sequoyah and Browns Ferry nuclear stations have also contributed to reducing TVA’s carbon emissions by 30 percent since 2005, a reduction that will rise to 60 percent by 2020.
“Nuclear power remains the only source of carbon-free energy that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” said Joe Grimes, TVA executive vice president of generation and chief nuclear officer. “TVA believes that Watts Bar Unit 2, and other nuclear units like it across the Valley and the nation, represents a vital investment in our clean energy future.”
The Tennessee Valley Authority is a corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving more than 9 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. In addition to operating and investing its revenues in its electric system, TVA provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation.
This is the energy equivalent of more than 7,000 wind turbines (assuming 15% average capacity of the turbines).
$6M times 7,000 turbines equals $42 billion capital cost (versus this plant at the stated $4.7 billion).
Then there is the lifetime comparison. The $4.7 billion investment lifetime is about 50 years whereas the $42 billion investment lifetime is 10 to 20 years.
MATH doesn’t lie. That is why we use it (and the greens don’t).
Yes and don’t forget all the birds that are saved by this plant versus equivalent wind turbine bird choppers.
wind turbines —
What part fails in 10 years or 20 years?
Can certain parts be replaced? I just had to replace a car battery after 8 years.
Don’t take this the wrong way. I am not a fan of wind turbines. Most things need duct tape or 3-in-one oil, or both, to keep operating.
The wind turbines near me [Wild Horse Wind Farm] sit on a high tower and a massive concrete pad. Such an investment surely is not based on a 10 year life. In fact, this one’s first towers were completed in December 2006.
Wind turbines have a designed lifetime of 20 years but most don’t make it that long and are simply shutdown.
They are subject to many stresses, metal fatigue, rust, many moving parts, even the blades suffer erosion and become too rough to operate efficiently enough. Then, they catch on fire, get hit by killer lightening strike, concrete pad shifts off-centre or erodes and that’s it.
Turning a horizontal wind into energy requires everything to work just right and be lined up just right and for every part to be at optimum condition. 20 yars is too much to ask for all that.
Is there any truth in the rumour that this power plant was required to meet the demand from the Gore mansion in Tennessee?
That rumor is false; there were no changes to the plant design, but the route of one of the high voltage power lines, and specific substation location, was altered to be able to better serve the mansions’ demand and Gores’ needs;)
Where is the nuclear waste going ?
Probably the same place that it is already going. And the world hasn’t ended yet.
Unfortunately we are unable to re-process the waste as was our original plan and as Japan, China, India, and France do. This is what we SHOULD be doing with it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste/
It will stay on site, like it does with every other nuclear plant in the US.
Please study just what “waste” is. Temporarily stored rods are 95 percent recoverable, making them very valuable and not waste.
Four more plants are currently under construction, two in Georgia (Vogtle units 3 and 4) and two in South Carolina (Summer units 2 and 3) . All of them are Westinghouse AP1000 PWR plants. The southeastern US is due for a lot of cheap abundant power soon.
Please define “soon”.
Vogtle 3 is supposed to enter commercial service in June 2019, and Vogtle 4 in June 2020. Summer unit 2 in 2019 and Summer unit 3 in 2020.
Nice to see…
The subtitle under the picture brings up two questions:
a) 1150 megawatts of electricity is a dreadful phrase (electricity is measured in joules). It should be “electricity output of 1150 MW.” The electricity needs to be specified in this case as there is potentially also heat output from thermo-plants. Heat amounts to twice the electricity figure theoretically, but in reality only about 1000 MW can be deliverable to surrounding communities for heating/cooling. Notice that this useful “waste” energy is not available with most renewables.
b) The other problem lies with the “650 000 homes serviced.” Assuming CF = 90 %, the net 1000 MW would be delivering 1500 kW/home. Does not sound right. Where would this home be geographically located? And would it be all electric or mixed with gas, or oil, in addition?
Jake,
On this Blog we must use the Watts term for the electricity unit of Power in honor of Anthony Watts who is a likely descendant of the Scottish Watt(s) for his contributions to the steam engine.
Usage of electricity on my bill is in KWH not Joules, my light bulbs and all my appliances are rated in watts. Fortunately some of us do not live in a UN/EURO science imposed SI system, although I remember many years ago some bureaucrats in Washington were insisting we must convert to SI, it never happened and all the bad impact claims on the economy never happened either. On the other hand the company I worked for did rewrite all the standards in dual units which was good since we did business in a lot of countries and I have worked in a number of different systems including the old metric system.
Not sure I understand some your comments, for example Mega prefix is well defined in the scientific world, were you suggesting otherwise? See below.
Prefix (Symbol) Power Numeric Representation
yotta (Y) 1024 1 septillion
zetta (Z) 1021 1 sextillion
exa (E) 1018 1 quintillion
peta (P) 1015 1 quadrillion
tera (T) 1012 1 trillion
giga (G) 109 1 billion
mega (M) 106 1 million
kilo (k) 103 1 thousand
no prefix 100 1 unit
On the other hand M often has a different Meaning in the financial world, so there can be confusion in reading some articles.
For your education,
the watt is a unit of power (of ANY energy flow) not the Watt. On the other hand, Watt was James as is our honorable Anthony. Your bill is not in KWH but in kWh (check it), which is metric, well defined and accepted in the remnants of the US medieval system. And yes, it is incorrect to say “1150 megawatts of electricity” a junior high subject to distinguish. The joule would be less like to be so associated.
There is no prefix Mega. Only mega, symbol M. It has been about for a century thus I doubt it needed explanation among people conversant in the energy/power field.
re: jake October 21, 2016 at 6:50 pm: “1500 kW/home”
Those are VOA (Voice of America, at onetime a shortwave broadcaster) power levels; I’m limited to 1500 Watts of RF output power by our Federal Communications Commission.
I range between 1,000 kWH to 1500 kWH *usage* per month. Maybe you were shooting for that figure in your above cited figure?
A home in winter with electric heat will, at peak consumption, show (or ‘burn’) 10,000 to 20,000 Watts during a ‘heat’ cycle. That equates to roughly 100,000 homes for a 1150 MWe plant, BUT, not all homes call for *heat* at the same time, so this figure of ‘homes served’ can be 3 to 8 times that figure easily.
So, 650,000 homes served is not an extraordinary figure.
An all-electric, U.S. home averages 5 kW to 15 kW and more, depending on geographical location, size, and the number of teenagers residing. In a home where gas or oil is used for space and water heating, and therefore electricity powers only appliances such as lights, TV, A/C, etc., the el. consumption is 1.4 kW for the average U.S. home according to EPA. Utilities in the Northeast claim 1.0 kW for that region.
There are exaggerated claims in contractor brochures such as: “…we will install a 1 MW system, sufficient to power 1000 homes.” Is anyone checking? Consumer Protection?
Just in case you’re interested in nuclear power plants TVA is selling one. https://www.tva.gov/Newsroom/Bellefonte
Amaze your friends, relatives and neighbors! Be the first on your block to split atoms and astound all your friends. Bids start at $36.4 million – a small price to pay for your very own nuclear power plant.
I hope this will meet with the moderator’s approval. I have no commercial interest in the sale of this facility nor any remuneration for posting this link. It just seemed to fit into the thread.
I want it. Lemme see, how much change do I have in my pocket……
Another benefit of is that it will extend the life of fossil fuels, including coal, that we will eventually need.
John Hansen of NASA should be happy too.
A great start. Now they need to re-commence Bellefonte rather than sell off the partially completed site.
http://www.domain.com.au/news/multibilliondollar-us-nuclear-power-plant-to-sell-for-fraction-of-the-price-20160913-grexhq/
Several operators have expressed interest in buying and completing the plant. Also, initial site work has been completed for a new plant in SW Georgia, too.
Leftist Eco-wackos have significantly contributed to the destruction of the US economy.
US rules & regulation compliance costs are $2 TRILLION/yr, which is close to the ENTIRE GDP of India, a land of 1.2 billion souls…
The NRC/EPA bureaucratic monstrositIes and all the direct and indirect costs and delays they inflict on private-sector nuclear energy companies, effectively prohibit nuclear power from ever becoming competitive, and severely restrict the development of new nuclear power technologies.
The quickest way to destroy an industry is to make it unprofitable, which the NRC & EPA have done to the nuclear industry. Wind & solar companies don’t have to worry about profitability because they get HUGE government subsidies to offset their inherent losses….
China’s first test LFTR goes online in a few years and a viable commercial reactor design will soon follow… They’ll eventually implement a modular LFTR plant design, capable of being constructed in 20 WEEKS, while it takes the US 20 YEARS to build an outdated Light Water Reactor…
Leftists have destroyed the US.
Right wing nut jobs have caused the wars that are so cheap and cost effective. More than half the budget gets spent on the military and we have about 1000 bases around the world, far more military spending than about then next ten nations combined and still the right bemoans how much we spend on the environment.
Lest you think this left is all upset about nuclear power, you are dead wrong. I started posting about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors on this board before anyone else. I am just sick of us blowing up the planet.
left should be lefty
I agree that the US needs to stop being the policeman of the world and needs to shutdown most of the 700 overseas bases, and that each country should be responsible for its own national security.
All of the world’s wars were STARTED by Leftists and the US helped defeat the Leftist tyrants and Theocratic despots.
US Defense Department’s budget last year was $586 billion or 16% of TOTAL federal spending, or about 3% of US GDP. Your silly comment that Defense spending amounts to “half the budget” was nonsense… I’d like see the defense budget cut to 2.5% of GDP.
Leftist Social Security, Medicaid/care and other federal welfare programs is what devours 50%+ of total federal spending, and already has $100+ TRILLION in unfunded liabilities…. All these federal programs are unconstitutional, regardless of what past SCOTUS decisions may have been.
Moreover, excessive Lefist rules and regulations inflict $2 TRILLION/yr in compliance costs, which is almost 4 TIMES the cost of defense spending.
We have $20 TRILLION in national debt and it’s growing by $1 TRILLION/year.
Leftists have destroyed the US.
Right on.
Time for a celebratory drink at Moe’s with Safety Inspector Homer and a chaser of hot salty greenie tears.
Put your hand up for Tennessee.
Start the chant
MORE NUKES!!!
MORE NUKES!!!
MORE NUKES!!!
ETC
More LFTRs
More LFTRs
More LFTRs
🙂
Time to invest long-term in uranium etf stocks! Cheers
Hillary Clinton put 25% of uranium supply in the hands of Putin, so that the Canadian middle man could facilitate Millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
She did this as sec of State of the USA. by the way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
“The $4.7 billion capital construction project was completed on budget.”
Kudos to the project management. That is no small accomplishment.
It is interesting to compare the capitol cost of this new Nuclear Plant with a recently built solar plant, Crescent Dunes CSP.
The Nuclear plant cost 4.7 Billion while the Solar plant cost 1 Billion to build.
The Nuclear plant provides 10 times the Power at 1150 Megawatts than the Solar plant at 110 Megawatts.
So the cost of the solar plant per capacity is approximately double.
Others can better consider the relative cost of fuel, taxes, land, killed birds, and Maintenance but it seems obvious which can provide the lowest cost electricity delivered. Both emit minimal CO 2 to the atmosphere.
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/new-concentrating-solar-power-plant/#comments
“The new, 110 MW, Crescent Dunes CSP plant heats molten salt to a very high temperature. The heated salt is then passed through a heat exchanger to produce steam. Importantly, the salt stores heat for use any time during the day or night.”
“The Crescent Dunes CSP plant cost just under $1 billion, or $10,000 per KW, which is approximately 10 times the cost of an NGCC plant at $1,100 per KW.”
The largest Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) has been a 18 $/W investment. An 880 MW Nuclear Plant (NP) operating since 1975, cost 2.4 $/W adjusted for inflation to today. The average wattage produced per employee is 15 times lower at the CSP then at the NP.
Careful there. You’re using nameplate (peak) output in your calculation of capital cost per Kw. Cresent Dunes is much worse than 10 times as expensive as an NGCC plant when you use “average” Kw output. If you accept Cresent Dune’s claims of a 57% capacity factor (I do not – I think they’ll be lucky to average 40%) and compare that with the routinely achieved 90% capacity factor of a base-loaded NGCC plant, you’ll find Cresent Dunes is over 14 times as expensive. Use the capacity factor I suspect Cresent Dunes to achieve and the capital cost is 22 times as expensive.
No, I am not. I am using the actual average output as stated in Wiki. I am also not referring to Crescent Dunes, but another CSP, a straight thru one, the largest in the US.
There are misleading data concerning CFs all over the place, I agree with you. Most of them hide the amount of electric and heat energy needed during nights, maintenance, no-wind period, etc. in electricity, natural gas, diesel and gasoline. Note also above the operation cost difference: 15 times (not percent!) higher then at NP.
Reply intended for Catcracking, not jake.
Thanks, for your comment, I was only comparing information available to me at the time, which clearly showed Crescent Dunes is a much more expensive capital expense that the specific Nuclear plant. Crescent Dunes is a molten salt plant which still generates electricity after the sun goes down. I appreciate your addition as I did not have any information available on the capacity factor, which is not likely as high as claimed.
My comment was a statement of fact not a complaint. Are you the guy I talked to that was surprised to learn that we have flush toilets here?