Vogtle Nuclear Plant 3-4 Costs More than Double

Subtitle: Costs Keep Rising - at $29 Billion Thus Far

The twin-reactor Vogtle nuclear plant under construction in Georgia is a frequent topic here on SLB (see articles here, here, here, here, and here )   Over the years, the plant's cost to construct (final cost estimate) has progressed from $14 billion to $17 then $21 billion.   Today's news article from Reuters (see link)  has the latest estimate at $29 billion - and the plant is still far from completion.    The Reuters article from 6/15/2017, "Group says Georgia nuclear plant costs rise to $29 billion,"  references a watchdog group Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.  

Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant - red dirt is new construction
photo - Wiki Commons by Charles C. Watson Jr.

That's for 2200 MW output; the $29 billion is more than double the initial estimate of $14 billion.

Note the pattern the nuclear industry uses over and over:  lowball the initial estimate to obtain approval to build.  Blame the contractor, designer, suppliers, and regulators for cost overruns.  Beg the PUC for money to finish the plant.  Charge the customers for all the costs.


Repeat.

The Vogtle plant uses the infamous Westinghouse design known as the AP-1000, a pressurized-water reactor design that is supposedly cheaper, safer, and much faster to build than previous designs.   Westinghouse, as is well-known, recently filed for bankruptcy due to huge losses in the nuclear plant business.    This design was one of the ones certified by the US NRC that is "off-the-shelf," that is, NOT a unique design that requires lengthy study to obtain NRC certification.  There are four such AP-1000 reactors under construction in the US, two at Vogtle as already stated, and two more at the Summer plant in South Carolina.  A few others with slight modifications were built, or are under construction in China. 

Nuclear cheerleaders are quite fond of stating that modern nuclear plants are built for $4000 per kW of electrical output.  The present estimate of $29 billion and 2200 MW yields a cost per kW of $13,180.  

It is also notable that the AP-1000 is supposed to be built in modules, so that multiple areas can be built on simultaneously.  Then, the finished modules are simply fitted into place.   That construction technique actually was used in the construction of Liberty Ships in World War 2, and it did shorten the construction time for the ships.    It obviously is not working for the nuclear plants. 

The sad saga of the Vogtle nuclear plant continues.   With three years remaining before startup, there is plenty of time for more problems to occur, more delays, more costs, and even then who knows if the plant will be certified as safe to start up and operate.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here   

Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Nears $21 Billion

Subtitle: Vogtle Nuclear Plants Cost More Than $10 Billion Each

"The cost of the new reactors, originally projected at $14 billion, is now (4Q 2015) close to $19 billion and might reach $21 billion, according to recent PSC filings.

Georgia Power executives dispute estimates that the costs could be as high as $21 billion, but there’s no question Vogtle has greatly exceeded its original projections.

The project is also running 39 months behind schedule with even more delays predicted. Each day’s delay in completion adds an estimated $2 million to the total cost.

These cost increases are bad news for Georgia Power’s customers and also for those who get their electricity from EMCs and municipal electric companies."  -- see link

--  From the Columbia County News Times.  h/t to commenter Rex Berglund

The recent news from Georgia, where the Vogtle plant expansion is being built, keeps getting worse and worse - exactly as predicted on SLB.  In a classic bait-and-pay-later move, the project's proponents sold the project to the regulators using a low-ball estimate, and now that billions have been spent, will turn to the "we must finish it to avoid wasting all the money already spent."  This is how a nuclear plant ends up being finished years late, and billions of dollars over the original budget.   Vogtle is presently just over 3 years behind schedule, and $5 billion over the budget.  With years yet to go, there is plenty of time for yet more delays to occur, more cost over-runs, and each year of delay can add $1 billion or more to the cost.  

Construction delays, as described elsewhere on SLB, (see link)  include tearing out and re-working faulty construction, equipment suppliers providing late or defective items, serious adverse weather, unforeseen site conditions, and redesign for new NRC requirements.  Also, delays can be caused by worker slowdowns, lawsuits for allowable causes, owner-contractor disputes, faulty design that requires corrections, acts of God or the enemy (force majeur), improper scheduling by the contractor, inadequate workforce staffing or untrained workforce (learning on the job), poor supervision, and others.

A few years ago, before the Vogtle construction started, I speculated on SLB that whichever US utility was the first to build a new nuclear plant would serve as a warning to all others who might be contemplating building more nuclear plants.  The cost overruns continue, the long delays in completion continue, both of which un-necessarily increase the price of electricity to the consumers.   Meanwhile, alternatives to buying from the utility not only exist, they are increasing.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

Nuclear Plant Delayed Yet Again - Costs Soar

Subtitle:  Vogtle Plant Expansion approaching $17 billion and 3 years late

The twin-reactor nuclear power plant under construction at the Vogtle site in Georgia (US) has once again had delays and cost over-runs. see link.   From the article:  

“The abysmal failure to execute this project, with the long delays, repeated construction screw-ups and escalating costs, means that even if Vogtle (expansion) is completed, it will not be the starting gun of the race for new (nuclear) reactor construction in the U.S.,” said Mark Cooper, a fellow with the Institute for Energy and the Environment. “It will be the mausoleum in which nuclear power is laid to rest.”  

Vogtle nuclear power plant and expansion project --
Wiki Commons by Charles C. Watson Jr.

This is not a surprise (see link) as nuclear power plants are almost always reported (and sold) at a figure far below the final cost, and their startup dates are optimistically stated as many years before they finally start. It will likely be at least 10 years total, maybe more, to get the plant running.   The project was announced with a 4 year construction period for the first reactor, and clearly that will not happen as 3 years are already added to the schedule. 

The consequences to the utility, and ultimately the rate-payers, are grim.  This is for at least three reasons: 1), the builder must pay interest on the construction loans, 2)  inflation keeps increasing the prices of labor and materials, and 3) the utility must keep purchasing power to send into the grid, power that the nuclear plant is not producing. This may be from keeping older plants running past their shutdown date, or buying power from others. None of this is news, as the South Texas Nuclear Plant (STNP) showed clearly back about 30 years ago. Austin, San Antonio, and Houston all were scrambling to find power for their cities when the STNP ran years and years over schedule. The power they had to purchase was very, very expensive.   

One can speculate what problems are causing the cost over-runs and the delays.   Typical delays on large projects include, but are not limited to, tearing out and re-working faulty construction, equipment suppliers providing late or defective items, serious adverse weather, unforeseen site conditions, and redesign for new regulatory (NRC) requirements.  Also, delays can be caused by worker slowdowns, lawsuits for allowable causes, owner-contractor disputes, contractor-subcontractor disputes, faulty design that requires corrections, acts of God or the enemy (force majeur), improper scheduling by the contractor, inadequate workforce staffing or untrained workforce (learning on the job), poor supervision, and others. 

Even with the unprecedented move of charging rate-payers more on their monthly bills while the plant is constructed, this Vogtle plant will be very costly, perhaps as much as $20 billion at completion.  It may very well require more than 10 years to complete.  At that, it should indeed be the "mausoleum in which nuclear power is laid to rest".   

Sadly, nuclear proponents have only rose-colored glasses and will say something like "it is wrong to condemn an entire industry because one new-technology plant was a bit over-budget."     In the same vein as the nuclear safety mantra, with its steady progression from “no one has ever been injured”, to “no member of the public has ever been injured”, to “no member of the public has died”, to “nuclear power is safer than coal or natural gas,”  nuclear proponents dig ever-deeper in finding creative ways to vainly justify the enormous costs and years-long schedule overruns for nuclear power plants. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California   
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 13

Subtitle: US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

In an attempt to revive a dead industry, nuclear power plants have received, and continue to receive strong subsidies. This, the thirteenth article in the series, discusses nuclear subsidies.  Updated 5/28/2014 -- see below for state of Illinois' attempt to bail out money-losing nuclear plants. 

source: Wiki Commons

Previously, the articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power showed that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, and (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands.  Links to previous articles are found at the conclusion of this article. 

Carbon Tax   

Nuclear advocates argue, firstly, for a carbon tax so their plants will be economically attractive. The idea is that, since nuclear plants are powered by radiation-spewing uranium fuel that produces no carbon dioxide, these type of plants should be credited for not producing CO2.  Their argument is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.  Other forms of power generation that burn fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, do emit CO2.  Congress did not pass a carbon tax, but the present administration accomplished the same goal via the US EPA.  The US EPA effectively got the same result by regulating CO2 emissions from power plants so that coal-fired plants must shut down.  Nuclear advocates see this as a huge victory.  In a sense, the EPA regulations are a form of federal subsidy for the nuclear industry.  

UPDATE 5/28/14:  see link  From the Chicago Tribune, Nuclear plants cannot compete economically, so the Illinois Speaker of the House introduces a resolution urging federal policies to subsidize nuclear plants based on their zero-emissions of CO2.    "Three nuclear plants owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. failed to secure contracts to provide power to the electrical grid at an annual auction held last week.

Exelon’s Byron and Quad Cities plants in Illinois were priced out of the auction by competing power providers, the company said Tuesday, placing the future of those assets in question. Its Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, which is slated to close in 2019, also didn’t clear the auction."     also, 

". . . [Illinois] House Speaker Michael Madigan [D - IL] wants to help keep those plants open. They are among the top employers in the towns and counties in which they operate. A resolution sponsored by Madigan was introduced to the House last Friday urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the electric grid operators, to adopt policies that are "friendly" to nuclear power. Translation: enact a new rule to curb carbon emissions, which would be a boon to Exelon because its nuclear plants do not release greenhouse gases."  -- end update

Double Standard on Subsidies

Secondly, nuclear advocates also have a double standard in decrying any subsidies for their competition - primarily wind but also other renewable forms of power generation.  Then, the industry happily accepts subsidies of their own, not just the EPA boost from regulating coal-fired plants out of operation.  The nuclear industry also receives subsidies in the form of: 

1) huge loan guarantees from government, approximately $8.3 billion for the Vogtle plant alone.  (Update 5/4/2014: For more on new nuclear projects with loan guarantees, see link -- end update)
2) government legal relief from radiation liability, under the Price-Anderson Act, (see update just below)
3) regulation that no lawsuits during construction will be allowed (with a minor exception),
4) regulation to raise electricity prices during construction to avoid interest costs on construction loans; [UPDATE - 5/31/2014: South Carolina has already increased rates to pay for nuclear construction, now seeks another increase.  "The latest request, if approved, will mean customers will be paying about $20 more per month for their power than they were at the beginning of 2009. "  see link   end update]

 and 
5) operating regulations that are routinely relaxed to allow plants to not spend money to comply. (see Article 15 in the series, link here)  

Each of the five subsidies just listed will may be the subject of a more detailed article.  

Update: 5/11/2014 - Price-Anderson Act, summary.  The Act limits the liability of nuclear plant owners to $10.2 billion, with the US government taking the excess liability above that stated limit.  This is, probably, the greatest subsidy of all.  No nuclear plant would be constructed absent this shielding from lawsuits and damage claims from a major nuclear meltdown and release of radioactive materials.   (see link for more details and analysis on Price-Anderson Act on SLB - Part 25 in TANP series)

The language of the Act states: "The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of commercial reactors to assume all liability for damages to the public resulting from an
‘extraordinary nuclear occurrence’ and to waive most legal defenses
they would otherwise have. However, in exchange, their liability
will be limited to capped amounts established in the Act.
First, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum amount of
insurance commercially available to pay any damages from a severe
nuclear accident. That amount is currently $300 million.
Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally
against all covered commercial reactors, up to $95.8 million per reactor
(most recently adjusted for inflation by NRC in August 2004).
Those assessments would be paid at an annual rate of no more

than $10 million per reactor. According to the NRC, all of the nation’s 103 commercial reactors are currently covered by the Price-
Anderson retrospective premium requirement.
Funding for public compensation following a major nuclear incident
would therefore include the $300 million in insurance coverage
carried by the reactor that suffered the incident, plus the
$95.8 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 103 currently
covered reactors, totaling $10.2 billion. On top of those payments,
a 5 percent surcharge may also be imposed, raising the total
per-reactor retrospective premium to $100.6 million and the total
potential compensation for each incident to about $10.7 billion.
Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry’s liability for an incident
is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the
number of covered reactors, amount of available insurance, and an
inflation adjustment that is made every 5 years.
The Act provides that in the event that actual damages from an
accident are in excess of this amount, Congress will ‘‘thoroughly review’’
the incident and take such action as is necessary to provide
‘‘full and prompt compensation to the public.’’ " -- source: Price-Anderson Act Amendments of 2005. [end update]

Cannot Compete Even With Subsidies

Even with the subsidies in the US, nuclear power has stagnated and is barely limping along on life support.  More plants are shutting down than are being built.

Conclusion

Nuclear power plants in the US are, and have been, heavily subsidized via loan guarantees, liability relief, relief from some lawsuits, a form of a carbon tax that shuts down their coal-based competition, and others.   The only conclusion that can be drawn is US nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized. 

Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links.  Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - this article  

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Nine

Subtitle: Nuclear power plants require long construction schedules

Up until now, the Truth About Nuclear Power series has discussed the costs of operating and constructing the plants, and the impact on scarce water resources.  It has been shown that nuclear power plants cost far too much to construct, use far too much water, cannot compete in today’s electricity market, and if they were the sole source of electricity on a grid, power prices would escalate to unacceptably high levels.   

This article discusses one of the reasons nuclear plants cost so much, and debunks one of the favorite talking points of the nuclear advocates.  The advocates are fond of saying that nuclear plants would not cost so much if only the lawyers would step aside and let the plants be built without lawsuits.   In fact, frivolous lawsuits are now barred for new nuclear power construction in the US.  However, costly delays are occurring, and will occur in the future for the usual set of construction delay issues.  Delays cost money, and the longer the delay, the more money is spent by one of the parties to the construction. 

Examples of construction delays include, but are not limited to, tearing out and re-working faulty construction, equipment suppliers providing late or defective items, serious adverse weather, unforeseen site conditions, and redesign for new NRC requirements.  Also, delays can be caused by worker slowdowns, lawsuits for allowable causes, owner-contractor disputes, faulty design that requires corrections, acts of God or the enemy (force majeur), improper scheduling by the contractor, inadequate workforce staffing or untrained workforce (learning on the job), poor supervision, and others.

As one example, nuclear power plants have many critical welds.  The critical welds must be performed by qualified welders, who are paid a premium.  Also, the critical welds are required to be x-rayed to ensure the welds meet quality control specifications and will be sufficiently strong.  It takes time, and costs money to x-ray and inspect all those critical welds.  It is well-known that the South Texas Nuclear Plant had many faulty critical welds that failed x-ray inspection and had to be welded again until they were right. 

Another example, again from the South Texas Nuclear Plant, of faulty design that required correction is the mis-match on the drawings for two halves of the plant.  The piping and other items that were to connect across the match-line were off by a noticeable amount.  The work was delayed while the engineering firm re-engineered and re-issued the proper drawings.  Delays caused by faulty rebar for concrete have been an issue at the Vogtle plant under construction in Georgia, USA.   Other delays at Vogtle include design changes, and delivery of equipment.  Vogtle is now reported to be 21 months behind schedule.  That number will surely increase as more time passes.    See link for list of delays and cost over-runs at Vogtle.  

Delays occur in other countries, also.  As an example, the Finland plant being installed by Areva had delays with the concrete.  Apparently, the concrete was not to the required specification.  That project is also years behind schedule. 

Even without delays, nuclear plants require longer to construct due to the inherent danger of nuclear power (discussed in Part Five) and the three levels of containment required by the NRC.  In short, there are many more items of equipment required to contain the deadly radioactivity if and when an accident occurs.   More items of equipment require longer construction times.  Also, more testing is required before startup, more inspection as the construction progresses, all of which take time. 

Conclusion

Nuclear power plants require long construction schedules, made longer by delays that have nothing to do with lawsuits to impede progress.

Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links.  Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine - this article

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Seven

Subtitle: All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

In an all-nuclear-powered grid, self-generation systems become much more attractive because the grid prices go up very high.  Part Two in this series on nuclear power showed that power prices with an all-nuclear-grid will increase by 5 to 8 times their current rates.   The reason for discussing an all-nuclear grid is the oft-made statement that the entire world must shift, someday, to nuclear power because fossil fuels will eventually run out.  This series on nuclear power is, in part, a response to those who believe nuclear power is the best option forward.  Nuclear is probably the worst of all options for the long term.  Future articles in this series will discuss viable alternatives for future power generation, alternatives that do not include nuclear power.  

However, if such an all-nuclear-grid were to be built, and when prices escalate dramatically as they will, power customers can then afford to self-generate because doing so will be much cheaper than purchasing power from the grid.  They can afford to install solar or wind power, even with storage; time-shifting usage systems such as make ice at night, or hot water depending on the season on off-peak power; cogeneration or tri-generation systems that burn natural gas and make electricity, ice water for cooling, and hot water for domestic use; install new items or retrofit buildings and houses to be much more energy efficient such as insulation, triple glazed windows, seal air leaks, heat recovery heat exchangers for hot water leaving the house.  Businesses can also afford expensive conservation measures: insulation, more efficient motors, modern equipment of more efficient designs, time-shifting power consumption.  Industry can then install much more self-generation or cogeneration to remove load from the grid as was done along the US Gulf Coast in the 1970s and 80s.   

Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP), has grown dramatically in the US since

CHP Capacity Growth in US
source: DOE

1983.  See photo at right.   Total installed capacity has grown from about 25,000 MW to more than 90,000 MW today.  The rapid increase in electricity prices stimulated that growth, as nuclear power plants came on-line.   If and when an all-nuclear-grid is built, much more CHP will be installed.  In some circles, removing load from the grid by self-generation is known by the clever name of “nega-watts.” 

Currently in the US, a new twin-reactor nuclear power plant is under construction in Georgia at the Vogtle power plant.  This will be an opportunity for customers in that area to produce nega-watts and generate a portion or all of their power for themselves.   The southeast states do not have substantial wind onshore, so wind generation is probably not an option. However, off-shore wind along the coast is fairly good.  Wind from that resource can certainly beat the power prices from an all-nuclear grid. Also, the frequent cloud cover and rain make solar power generation unfeasible.  However, small generators powered by natural gas are certainly an attractive option.   For commercial or industrial operations, burning bio-mass from the forest product industries will be even more attractive than it is today. 

Removing load from the grid by self-generation, or by alternative generation from off-shore windturbines, will create a serious problem for the utility that builds nuclear power.   Ideally, for customers, but problematically for the utility, such self-generation would occur at night and be stored in storage systems for use the next day.   Removing load from the grid at night will reduce the baseload, and force the nuclear power plants to reduce rates or stop generating.  Stopping a nuclear power plant is not what utility operators want to do.    The interesting consequence of reducing power output from a nuclear plant is the plant’s owners receive less money, yet their fixed costs from building the plant must be paid.  Their only alternative is to seek a rate increase from their public utility commission.  This further increases prices to customers, which gives them more incentive to install CHP.

As stated just above, rapid growth in CHP occurred after 1983.  This was primarily accomplished by industrial users who built gas-fired cogeneration systems to produce power and steam for their industries.   I had a hand in building just such a plant (see photo) at my

CCGT Plant in LaPorte, TX
Cooling tower at the bottom left
Turbine Building at upper right

employer at that time, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, at their chlorine-caustic plant in LaPorte, Texas, near Houston.   This plant is still in operation, although it has a different owner now.  The plant suffered a few price increases for electric power in the late 1970s, and determined that it was attractive to build our own combined-cycle gas turbine plant, or CCGT.   The CCGT plant has two gas turbine-generators, each of which feeds the exhaust gas into a separate heat recovery steam generator, HRSG.  Steam from the HRSGs is let into a steam turbine that drives a third generator.   The steam turbine has steam extraction for supplying the chlorine plant, so the existing boilers were shut down.  Exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed in a condenser, which is cooled by a new cooling tower. 

In contrast to the 1980s, today there are more alternatives for self-generation or CHP.  As mentioned above, wind and solar are commercially available.  Also, for commercial and small home-use, gas-powered generation systems with heat recovery for hot water are available. 

Conclusion

Customers will very likely never pay the preposterous power prices that would result from an all-nuclear-grid.  Instead, they will install and operate various forms of CHP, or cogeneration plants and remove all or a part of their demand from the grid.   The all-nuclear-grid will sell less power.  The utility will see its revenues shrink, and be left with an installed asset base with little way of producing revenue to pay for it. 

Update: 4/6/2014, Germany also is installing CHP in response to their increased power prices.  see link   (end update)

Update: 8/21/2014, Goldman Sachs installed a water freezing system in their huge skyscraper in Wall Street.  This avoids purchasing power the next day for running air conditioning.  see link  (end update) 

Previous articles in The Truth About Nuclear Power series can be found at the following links.

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six --  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven – this article

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands
Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term
Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream
Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California