By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Absolutely I think they should build another [nuclear plant], because I think they’ll get better at it, It’s the cleanest energy you can possibly have out there, and we’re gonna need a tremendous increase in energy production.” [Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), quoted in Politico. June 27, 2024]
Nuclear power is a government-created and government-enabled industry. It was born of government largesse and regulatory favor, led by these five policies:
- Federal research & development by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, founded 1946)
- The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 limit on accident liability
- Five years of ‘free’ enriched uranium from AEC
- Federal jawboning to parties to construct plants
- State utility commissioners granting rate-base status for new plants
Nuclear’s history of cost overruns, construction delays, and in-progress cancellations speaks for itself. Suffice it to say that the free market would have never allowed this industry to jump from military applications to civilian ones. The “peaceful atoms” as a palliative for military-side destruction was a mistake.
More than a half-century later, the debacles of V.C. Sumner (cancelled in 2017) and Plant Vogtle #3 and #4 (completed) has the apologists and rent-seekers out in force. The $35 billion Plant Vogtle project created 2,200 megawatts of nuclear generation was more than double the original estimate ($14 billion) and seven years late. In terms of opportunity cost, the same capacity from natural gas combined cycle would have cost around $2 billion and been in operation for a decade.
Here are some quotations from Politico’s article, “Plant Vogtle fuels Capital Hill Nuclear Buzz” (June 27, 2024)
“Lawmakers from Georgia are still all in on nuclear energy, even after the state weathered one of the most costly and delayed nuclear projects in American history.”
“… Georgia’s Capitol Hill lawmakers … are already wondering when Southern Co., the utility that owns Georgia Power, might start plans to build a fifth reactor.”
“… Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) … enthusiasm speaks to the win streak nuclear energy is having on Capitol Hill. Last week, the Senate passed a compromise nuclear energy bill that eases Nuclear Regulatory Commission restrictions on smaller next-generation reactors. … On top of that, the administration recently announced it was injecting $900 million to boost the small reactor industry. The NRC expects two dozen applications for new and advanced nuclear over the next five years.”
“Republicans from the Conservative Climate Caucus took a tour of Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, south of Augusta, in May and held a panel discussion on the ‘importance of nuclear power’.”
“Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and several Biden administration officials also visited the plant earlier this month. Granholm even said that other states should follow Georgia’s example in building nuclear mega-projects like the AP1000 units at Vogtle. ‘Southern Company and Waynesboro, they have led the way here. But it is now time for others to follow their lead,’ Granholm said. ‘To reach our goal of net zero by 2050, we have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country.’”
“Gov. Brian Kemp agreed with Granholm in a visit a few days prior: ‘Now, let’s start planning for Vogtle Five,’ the Georgia Republican said.”
“‘There were a lot of incidents that occurred that interrupted and delayed the final coming online, but we got through all of that,” said Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), a senior appropriator who was one of the original champions of the project in 2008. “I think it’s turned out to be a success, and hopefully it will ring true for years to come’.”
“’We learned some important lessons, and hopefully we won’t repeat those,’ said Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.). ‘I don’t think that’s the reason why we shouldn’t at least try and go in that direction.’”
The overwhelming bipartisan love for Vogtle is drawing shock from environmental advocates and some lawmakers, especially due to the massive costs the project incurred on Georgia ratepayers. Out of the Georgia lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News, progressive Rep. Hank Johnson, was the only member to express real concerns with nuclear. “Ratepayers having to pay the price, and at the same time record profits for the owner of the reactors, something is not right with that,” Johnson said. “We need to invest in new ways of energy production that are clean and renewable and also cost-effective.”
Georgia Power plans to collect from ratepayers $7.56 billion in capital and construction costs incurred to build the two reactors.
The company’s shareholders, meanwhile, would take on the remaining $2.63 billion in construction spending, as per an agreement reached in 2023 with Georgia’s Public Service Commission.
“Georgia Power is one of the richest utilities in the nation,” Patty Durand, a Democrat running for the Public Service Commission, testified on behalf of the group Concerned Ratepayers of Georgia at the time of the agreement.
“Georgia Power should be required to use their huge profits to pay for the cost overruns rather than allowing Georgia Power to pass these billions of dollars onto its captive customers,” Durand added.
The situation is due to the “vertically integrated” model of Georgia Power, a structure where the utility handles the build-out of new power generation but is also guaranteed a return on those investments. Consumers are on the hook for covering the costs of those projects through electricity rates determined by the utility.
Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said upcoming hikes in electricity rates for Georgia consumers due to the Vogtle project are why no utilities are moving forward with plans to build a new large reactor.
“Given the experience at Vogtle, it’s going to take a lot more than happy talk to convince more utilities to take on that kind of a gamble,” Lyman said. “Putting one’s faith in such unrealistic scenarios is not going to help the U.S. achieve its carbon reduction goals and could well undermine them.”
Georgia Power estimated that the settlement would work out to an additional $8.95 per month for a typical residential customer this year, added to the average $153 monthly bill.
Resistance to federal backstop
Despite the growing bipartisan support for nuclear energy in Georgia and elsewhere, some are arguing that Congress will have to deliver even more money to the industry if new mega-reactors are to be built anytime soon.
Tim Echols, a member of Georgia’s Public Service Commission, suggested that a federal backstop would be necessary for utilities to make plans for new large reactor projects to limit ratepayers’ liability for ballooning costs.
“What makes sense is to build another AP1000 somewhere while the workforce is fresh,” Echols said on social media platform X. “And to do it, a federal backstop is essential.”
Such a proposal would entail Congress doling out more money, likely in the billions, to provide utilities leeway in covering over-budget costs on new large reactor projects.
Even smaller reactor projects could benefit from such a policy. In November, NuScale — the only U.S. developer with a small modular reactor design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — announced it was scrapping its Carbon Free Power Project because not enough utilities were subscribed to the program.
But the Hill’s most vocal nuclear boosters aren’t behind such a broad federal funding mechanism for either small or large reactors, especially considering the nuclear industry has received so much federal money in recent years.
“I’m not necessarily for that,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, Climate and Grid Security. “But I think the financing side of it is a concern for most because costs keep skyrocketing.”
Neither is Granholm, who shot down Southern CEO Chris Womack’s suggestion at a recent American Nuclear Society conference that any future projects still depend on the federal government providing more money and financial backing.
“What I hear you saying, Chris, is there needs to be more than what we’re putting on the table, and that’s hard to hear because we’ve just put billions and billions and billions on the table,” Granholm said in a panel discussion. “I don’t know what the delta is between what you think is necessary and what it would actually take to build up.”
That’s why Duncan and other lawmakers pushed the “ADVANCE Act,” the nuclear energy bill that would ease restrictions on smaller next-generation reactors.
They believe that small, factory-built reactors could avoid the cost overruns and long timelines of “one-of-a-kind” large reactors — if they can cut down NRC regulations. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) agreed, telling POLITICO last week that the new law’s speed-up of permitting will cut costs.
“Every year you add, it just adds more and more cost,” Capito said. “The point of [the ‘ADVANCE Act’] is to rein that in and have the expertise ready and available. And once the NRC does one or two of these [projects], it will become much easier.”
Nuclear backers are hopeful that Vogtle, despite the drawbacks, will portend a wave of new construction.
“Most of the focus has been on the small modular reactors,” said Carter, the Georgia Republican. “But if the Vogtle reactors function well over the next few years, then I think it’s an indication that we’ve got the technology and the ability to build those.”
But the Hail Mary of nuclear power is very irresistible to some “Net Zero” advocates who do not care about cost (economics). In fact, higher rates might be seen as good, even great, for forced energy conservation. (Ouch!)
Angelica Oung, self-described energy advocate at Clean Energy Transition Alliance,” recently posted:
I can’t believe it! It doesn’t feel real! Mark W. Nelson is posting from Vogtle, Georgia that the US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm just called for “hundreds” of large nuclear reactors to be built:
“We need two hundred of these by 2050. Two down, one hundred and ninety-eight to go.”
I believe it was 2022 when I first made myself an absolute pest on US DOE folk’s mentions and inboxes. But why? But why? But why aren’t we building more AP1000’s? Why is it all “SMR and advanced” when we’ve got a proven design and large reactors are the most cost-effective way to build nuclear? But Vogtle wasn’t done yet and we weren’t ready for that conversation. This is a reminder to self that sometimes change does happen and the political gridlock that seems so intractable can turn around with startling speed. Back when I first got the AP1000 bug in 2022 it just wasn’t the time! (I even have a hilarious memory of hounding Westinghouse executives about why they’re they’re pushing out the senseless AP300 just to jump on the SMR trend when they should obviously be pushing the more cost-effective AP1000).
With Vogtle 3&4 all done, the first pair of nuclear power reactors the USA has built for decades from scratch, it is the time to have this convo. They took too long and cost too much, but they were the First-of-a-kind. According to Jigar Shah Vogtle Unit 4 came in 30% cheaper than Unit 3 and Unit 5&6 would come in below $95/MWh.
Closer to home, Korea just called for a further 4.9GW of nuclear capacity by 2038, in addition to 5.6GW currently under construction. Nuclear will be the largest source of power in the land of K-pop and kimchi. This is according to Bloomberg. I bet a healthy chunk of that is going to be large reactors too because I was just in Korea and it’s very clear: SMRs are awesome, but niche. You build SMRs when you have a reason. Is it a small grid? A remote location? Do you need industrial heat? Are you leveraging existing infrastructure like a coal drop-in? Otherwise it’s like almost anything else: scale matters. The cup for a large milkshake is only a little larger than a medium milkshake. But you get a lot more milkshake!
THE ERA OF BIG NUCLEAR IS BACK!
More than 150 comments followed, some critical.
Thomas Eiden: “I’ve been in this industry long enough and have lived through enough “nuclear renaissances” to have learned to believe it when I see it. If you believe anything a politician or government agency spokesperson says, you *will* be disappointed.”
David Gaier: “Vogtle’s obscene cost overruns (screwing ratepayers of course) and years behind schedule to make COD was inexcusable. SMRs have fallen flat on their faces and AP1000s may indeed be the best way to go. But such incompetence and most likely, corruption that we saw in Georgia was Monty Python-esque absurdity.”
Eric Lemmons: “This woman is not exactly all that sharp. She has bought into the EV nonsense from day one! She literally had staffers blocking an EV charging station so she could virtue signal.
It’s been the exorbitant costs associated with building the large plants that have caused a lot of issues., look at VC Summer. They were in the process of building 2 AP1000’s and stopped dead due to gross construction mismanagement.
Vogtle was 7 years late and $17 Billion over budget! That literally sounds like it was built for the government! That is not a sustainable model!”
Johann Lindner: “The simple universal Law of Scale for Nuclear Powerplants of all sizes including factory produced Submarine reactors (=SMRs) – for total overnight Construction Cost – has been the same since 1960’s and worldwide for aml types and designs: (MW large NPP / MW small NPP)**0.6 is the ratio how much more an SMR costs (Overnight Construction Cost). That is why civil NPPs increased from SMR size (1960’s) to large 1300 MW size just 10 years later. Means there are still plenty of special markets, countries, different industries, isolated grids, district heating, etc – were SMRs are ideal.
Making basic large scale national electricity will still be best done by large NPPs. Finally – an important safety observation:
– a few large NPP sites can be safely protected (incl by military)
– 1000’s of SMRs especially in 3rd world countries will be a nightmare for protection and a paradies for terrorists.”
John Hockert: “We are not going to build 200 large nuclear plants by 2050. The technical infrastructure is not in place. We do not have enough nuclear plant constructors familiar with NQA-1 to build at that rate. We do not enough NRC construction inspectors to oversee that level of construction. We have many politicians who seem to believe that calling for the impossible and throwing money at it will succeed. We do need nuclear plants but sensible planning is required instead of calls for pie in the sky schedules that are doomed to failure.”
Adam Link: “I think Big Nuke is worse than Big Oil.”
To her critics, Oung replied: “Big or small, we will build them all.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rep Hank “Guam might tip over” Johnson. Quite possibly the most stupid person ever to hold an elected office. Although, Maxine “The moon is made of gases” Waters is giving him a run for his money.
Failure to undo the mischief Jimmy Carter did with Environmental Impact Reports is a major cause of delays. Much of the expense is due to lawfare by antinuclear groups, and sue-and-settle passive agressive apparatchiks cooperating with them.
Yep but it’s not as if the slushfunded fickles aren’t running into environmental pushback and getting nervous nukes are horning in on their gravy train-
Clean energy sector rallies against nuclear ‘mistruths’ (msn.com)
Hey that’s our lucrative misinformation patch so naff off!
I see no alternative to nuclear power alongside fossil fuel. I am weary of all the talk that we are learning how to build nuclear now. If we didn’t build the old nuclear plants that have been running for decades who did. The rush to newer, better, smaller whatever is not helpful. Let’s settle on a system we know works and start building. If we know in advance that changes should be made make the changes and get busy building. After we have made a significant number of them we can take another look at more improvements or different systems. Let’s get off our backside and start building.
The ridiculousness of the renewable clowns whining about spending lots of money on nuclear is laughable. At least when the nuclear plant is on line it provides dependable, reliable and clean power when we need it. A plus is it doesn’t screw up the grid like wind and solar.
^^ This ^^
As a trained nuclear engineer (though I went sideways into IT 🥴) it’s hard for me to hear the analysis above re: nukes vs nat gas essentially. But it’s true, CCGTs rule. No use building old style nukes if high-temp, efficient options like molten salt reactors are a possibility in the near future. Spend a billion to build a decent pilot plant, save billions in the future by not making over engineered, inefficient (~30%) dinosaurs.
I respect your opinion but I disagree. Let’s build what we already have approval for and know how to build. We will need far more plants than will be built by the time a molten salt reactor is ready for final approval and there is nothing stopping you from building your pilot plant. Go for it I am with you.
All those words, all those opinions, all those vested interests, all those degrees of ignorance.
We can clarify. Whichever way you cut it, it was government involvement that led to the increased costs. Therefore, it is the responsibility of government to reduce those surplus costs and to pay for making the mess in the first place.
Private enterprise must be freed from the government shackles. Safety is not a major issue now because the biggest fears of old times have been avoided.
It should be the priority of government to free up the system and to show a mindset of encouragement and assistance to nuclear private enterprise to grow, asap, a long term, reliable electricity source to meet the growing demand that is evident to most analysts.
(I speak with years of involvement in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle). Geoff S
It has become a maxim to me that whatever is wrong, government is at the heart of it. I no longer believe government is competent at anything they do, including their primary role of having a monopoly on violence. Not after BLM and Antifa, and no bail or prosecution for criminals.
Not only that, the safety authorities can restart their safety analysis and add constraints later. They can mandate any technologically available solution, by their own estimate of availability. They can then raise their standards to the sky because nobody is bold enough to say that a “major accident” from time to time is acceptable from the perspective of human or ecosystem health, and a “nuclear catastrophe” is just a tolerable leak, and that we must work on our abilities to get reliable estimates of health risks.
A solution to an irrational phobia is never more phobia inducing regulations.
Although I fully understand the need to keep radiation leaks to a minuscule level to be able to detect any other leak, which wouldn’t be so easy if the area was already radioactive.
Radiation exposure over time (not flash of radiation) is the one and only area where the empirical data is huge, consistent and the knowledge is based on long history. Other areas of human health have unreliable and contradictory data (nutrition) or data on very different, almost unrelated substances (vaccines, which are many, of different type and different content).
(Another area where people should stop worrying is nitrate is drinkable water.)
National maps of background radiation levels by county are readily available as are national maps of cancer incidence by county and type of cancer. A comparison of the two types of maps will quite clearly show that there is no correlation whatsoever between background radiation and cancer incidence.
Data on “flash” exposures to radiation is also available from Hiroshima and Nagasaki experience. Data on this issue is available from the Columbia K=1 Project and other sources.
Story Tip.
Perhaps nuclear will help overcome electricity rationing at EV charging stations. 😉
Electricity Rationing At Charging Stations Due To Limited Charging Infrastructure in Europe (notrickszone.com)
So funny ! 🙂
It’s so funny that environmentalists have to accept nuclear to save their beloved turbines, panels and especially the EVs! 🤣
People who are OK with frying birds or chopping them and bats are NOT environmentalists. They are simply antihuman. Yet for some reason will not simply do away with themselves or at least stop procreating.
How much of the complexity in a reactor is based on normal industrial design and how much on avoiding rare and biologically insignifiant radiation releases?
By that I mean that if you aren’t going to fight to globally abolish radiation therapy, you accept that an absolutely insane dose of radiation isn’t always a cancer cause (I have no doubt that cancer therapy is the most potent cancer starting of all drugs and therapies, but still).
So avoiding a tiny bit of radiation from reactors must be religion based.
And many people have been vocal about putting God out of the state power.
Radon in basements….
Mandatory diagnostic for selling houses in France!
Nice nuclear critical article
Nuclear backers still need to come to terms with reality: Nuclear is at best a niche technology in this century, backed only by governments that are interested in the military applications of it.
It gained huge support from fossil fuels in recent years – because they know it will bind ressources that could be used for renewables and deliever far less fifteen years in the future, if at all.
Even China, that achieved it’s renewable goals six years early, is cutting back on building new nuclear after not being able to fulfill their plans in time.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-07-16/chinas-renewable-energy-boom-breaks-records/104086640
When it comes to nuclear,still one of the best interviews I’ve read in recent time:
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/
We all have, and looks like some of us remember it 😀
HYDRO. Wind and solar provide very little of China’s energy.
Wind and solar CAN NEVER provide reliable power that countries need.
You have fallen for propaganda pap from the far-left….. as you always do because you don’t have a mind capable of doing anything else..
Meanwhile, back in the real world..
Correct, unless you want to regress society back to the stone age. Which appears to be the goal of the ideological green political elite.
When Trump wins the White House, he will immediately exit net-zero and start dismantling the renewable boondoggle. It’s a nightmare scenario for the green cabals and all the renewable bedwetters that live in a green fairyland regarding energy. There are literally billions of dollars of grift and subsidies that will disappear.
Drill baby drill.
“When Trump wins the White House, he will immediately exit net-zero and start dismantling the renewable boondoggle.”
But, what about the state’s that have net zero policies? Can he stop those? Like, here in Wokeachusetts.
Perhaps not, but the simple economics of wind and solar will eventually destroy them along with industry in the States that are true believers.
I’d argue that as MA is tied into an interstate grid system, the Feds have a valid role in regulating any state practices that might destabilize that grid.
A good place to start is to eliminate any state mandates and subsidies that favor intermittent energy sources to the extent that conventional sources must be operated in an uneconomic manner to maintain grid reliability.
Of course, MA could avoid Federal energy regulation by isolating itself from the grid (while still allowing other states to ‘wheel’ power through the transmission system), but I don’t think even the dumbest politicians on the planet are that stupid.
Don’t lose hope. Trump is up everywhere, even in Massachusetts he’s knocked 11 points off Biden since April. Sure, the Democrats are still well ahead there but you never know.
And last year China added twice the amount of coal fired power of the rest of the world combined.
and
And coal fired generation grew 6.5x as fast as solar generation in India, and twice as fast in China.
Don’t forget to divide the length of those gold bars by at least 3 to account for capacity factor for a valid approximation of consumable power.
And
China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country (economist.com)
It isn’t hard when everyone else is building almost no new nuclear or coal capacity.
Not China’s fault if other country’s politicians are as moronic as you are. !
China will have RELIABLE CHEAP electricity
Other countries that follow the anti-coal and nuclear idiocy… won’t.
Meanwhile, back in the non-fantasy world..
Indonesia and Philippines post new COAL usage record.
Coal use reaches record in Indonesia and Philippines, endangering climate goals: Study | The Straits Times
I wonder if coal’s resurgence has to do with super critical coal plants and advanced, efficient pollution controls becoming more mainstream.
But I guess LNG is too expensive if coal is a possibility.
Coal makes massive gains.. wind and solar basically nothing in Indonesia.
Coal makes massive gains.. wind and solar basically nothing in Phillipines.
Coal, oil and gas ‘rule’ in Vietnam.
Malaysia.. need a microscope to see the solar and wind…
oh wait.. Wind not even mentioned.
Worldwide 61GW of nuclear currently under construction. Equivalent to over 180GW of nameplate wind or 480GW of solar in their capability to produce energy over time.
OK, nearly half (26GW) of it is in China, but…
China’s construction of wind and solar plants is strictly for show, not for substance. How could it be otherwise?
Denis, agree. Political posturing, marketing, busy work for full employment objectives, and utilization of excess capacity, especially the 4 times more polysilicon than required for current demand.
IEA ‘World Energy Investment 2024’
“China is by far the largest coal producer and consumer globally and also the main market for coal exports. Estimate its coal investment will be USD 100bn (over 60% of the global total) in 2024”
“India is the world’s second largest coal producer and consumer and could well overtake China to become the largest coal importer as it can’t develop its own mines fast enough”
The capacity of nuclear power in China continues to increase. At present, 55 nuclear plants are in operation and 23 additional plants are under construction. It is ridiculous to assert that solar power can replace in any way the 24/7 power output of nuclear plants. At best,and only if solar electricity is required by rules to be accepted by the power distribution utility, they serve only as an occasional parasitic source which reduces the power generation of otherwise fully capable 24/7 plants and correspondingly reduces their profitability. Ditto for wind.
The primary driver for SMR nuclear is to replace wind and solar as the low carbon go-to source. SMR can’t compete with CCGT here in America, not even close, that’s not the point. We need to stop proliferating unreliable, intermittent, too much when you don’t need, too little when you do mineral intensive, low energy density grid poison.
What is the estimated cost for an assembly line factory produced 30 each 77 MW SMR modules at a 30 per month rate and the cost to semitrailer ship, assemble and commission in two years?
I don’t have a clue but on the face off it, 77 MW SMR*30 each*95% capacity factor=2200 MW has to be more cost effective vs 3 MW wind turbines at 35% CF= 2,200 of the monuments to human stupidity in a windfarm that will last 20 years instead of 60-80 year SMR life cycle.
Yes, in America mega-scale legacy nuclear plants are an historical artifact for a lot of reasons, especially political, the same as coal-fired generation. But suggesting nuclear is “expensive” without acknowledging the new one NRC design approved cookie cutter identical paradigm suggests a bias IMHO.
From the article: “The “peaceful atoms” as a palliative for military-side destruction was a mistake.”
What the hell does that mean?
From the article: “Out of the Georgia lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO’s E&E News, progressive Rep. Hank Johnson, was the only member to express real concerns with nuclear. “Ratepayers having to pay the price, and at the same time record profits for the owner of the reactors, something is not right with that,” Johnson said. “We need to invest in new ways of energy production that are clean and renewable and also cost-effective.”
The same Hank Johnson who thinks islands can tip over if “too much” weight is put on one side.
Hank Johnson, who professes to worry about “ratepayers having to pay the price” apparently is clueless about how much that “clean and renewable” energy Hank supports, is costing ratepayers. Clueless about islands and clueless about ratepayers. Just clueless. How stupid does one have to be to vote for this guy?
What a silly article! It’s amazing that it complains about a US government-developed technology while using a technology that wouldn’t exist if it had not been developed by the US government (i.e., the Internet). The only difference between these two “government-created and government-enabled” industries is that the former (nuclear) is extremely regulated by the government to this day, while the latter (internet) is a free-for-all, with US law, since 1996, protecting companies from being interfered with by the government (e.g., through libel lawsuits).
Someone should ask Robert Bradley Jr. why France has some of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. (Hint: It ain’t because of coal or natural gas.) France did this with a massive, government-initiated build-out of modern (for the time) nuclear plants based on US technology. This country accomplished this within a decade. China is now doing this today, again based on US technology.
So, one has to assume that either the US is too lazy and stupid to use its own technology — in which case there is no hope for us — or this is just a guy shilling for the oil companies.
I don’t have anything against natural gas. Nuclear + natural gas will kill anything that the “renewable” folks can put forward, but it baffles me why these shills are so scared of nuclear technology. It’s probably because they realize its potential to reduce their profits. All natural gas means high energy prices.
From the above article’s lead-in quote of Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) :
“Absolutely I think they should build another [nuclear plant], because I think they’ll get better at it . . .”
In response:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Albert Einstein
The Vogtle 3 and 4 nuclear power units cost an estimated $30+ billion at completion, compared to the initial project cost of $14 billion. Construction of both units began in 2009.
—Source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61963#:~:text=Georgia%20Power%20now%20estimates%20the,be%20officially%20in%20commercial%20operation.
So, Vogtle 5? . . . anybody got an extra $15+ billion laying around and the ability to wait 15 or so years for the start of your ROI?
This would be a third-of-a-kind plant and won’t have the NRC unnecessarily introducing new aircraft-impact rules during the execution of the project.
Really? And how much did Vogtle 3 & 4 differ from Vogtle 1 & 2?
And Vogtle 5, being the “third-of-a-kind” (your words), won’t benefit from/incorporate any “lessons-learned” from the design & construction of Vogtle 3 & 4?
Vogtle 3 + 4 are nothing like 1+2. I take that back. They use nuclear fission to heat water to drive a turbine that generates electricity. ALL OTHER DETAILS ARE DIFFERENT. They also now have a trained construction workforce of nuclear certified electricians, welders and pipefitters to call upon which they did not at the onset of construction. Almost all the slowdowns were regulatory or workforce created throughout the process. Oh, and the reactor manufacturer going bankrupt a quarter of the way through the process didn’t help things either.
Of course, slowdowns and bankruptcies like you mention could never happen again, could they?
Heck, the US flew astronauts to Moon way back in 1969. taking a span of about 10 years to do so from a infant beginning . . . so there is no reason whatsoever for the Artemis lunar landing program, started in December 2017 to take over 10 years to return US astronauts to the Moon . . . OH, WAIT . . .
As for that “trained construction workforce of nuclear certified electricians, welders and pipefitters to call upon”, one wonders what they be doing to maintain their skill sets for the next 3–5 years (minimum) that it will take to get the regulatory and environmental approvals, as well as to line up the financing, needed before construction of Vogtle 5 can even begin.
Right now, there are no plans to build any new commercial nuclear reactor power plants in the US.
Westinghouse have developed a smaller albeit similarly equipped SMR – the AP300. Smaller, quicker(?) to construct, less materials and footprint required, basically the same technology as the AP1000. Just a thought, maybe better for a utility district to put thier toes in the water constructing one of these first before they belly flop into another AP1000…
Regards,
MCR
“The simple universal Law of Scale for Nuclear Powerplants of all sizes including factory produced Submarine reactors (=SMRs) – for total overnight Construction Cost – has been the same since 1960’s and worldwide for aml types and designs: (MW large NPP / MW small NPP)**0.6″
A) the capital cost estimator is:
Cost of large capacity =(Large Plant output/Small Plant output)^0.6 x Small Plant cost.
B) This is the Universal “Law” of scale for all types of manufacturing plants!
“Nuclear’s history of cost overruns, construction delays, and in-progress cancellations speaks for itself.”
NO! It speaks mainly for US and UK nuke plant construction. The Universal Law of Scale does not apply where every iteration is a wholly new, essentially ‘experimental’ design. US and UK could learn a lot from a visit to Mrs Fields Cookies, or a Tim Horton’s Donuts operation. Or better, a CANDU reactor project.
Weakening the collusion that is taking place in the global commodities,(Oil/NG) markets and nuke deregulation would be two giants steps on the way cheap energy for America.
I agree that the nuke industry should be deregulated so that it can be competitive with American NG and Oil.. There are many places that would be better served by Nuke power. Especially, a smaller scale applications.
The last thing we need is a massively expensive politilcally motivated energy transion propelled by false problems and imposed on taxpayors. What Americans need is energy competition and cheap energy.