A financial look at Plant Vogtle nuclear projects

By Kristi Swartz

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

By embracing nuclear power, Southern Co. and some other U.S. utilities are hoping 
to incrementally move the nation away from foreign oil. Here are the nuclear highs and lows.

COMPARING COSTS

Higher construction costs

When the two original nuclear units at Plant Vogtle were planned, the total cost estimate was $660 million. But that was in 1971, before the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. That caused the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten standards and force utilities to make changes in training, emergency response planning and other safety issues.

Utilities, including Georgia Power, were forced to go back and make additional changes to their reactors so they could meet the stringent safety requirements before they could start producing electricity. Increased regulatory requirements, combined with a sharp increase in demand for materials and double-digit interest rates in the 1980s, all were key reasons the cost to build nuclear reactors began to soar.

Lower electric bills

Nuclear reactors are the most expensive power stations to build, typically followed by coal-fired and natural gas power plants. On the other hand, nuclear fuel prices are the cheapest and the least volatile when compared with coal and natural gas.

Georgia Power passes the cost of fuel directly to consumers in their electricity bills. This is the utility’s cost per kilowatt hour for nuclear, coal and natural gas in 2010:

Nuclear ................... $0.66 per kWh

Coal ........................... $4.53 per kWh

Gas and oil ............. $5.75 per kWh

How costs changed

Here’s a look at how the cost estimates for the first two Vogtle units changed over the years, with the final tab rising to $8.9 billion.

Year Cost estimate for first two Vogtle units

1971 $660 million

1977 $2.7 billion

1981 $5.5 billion

1983 $6.6 billion

1984 $7.2 billion

1985 $8.4 billion

1986 $8.4 billion

1987 $8.9 billion

Estimated cost now

For two new units: $14 billion

TOP NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

Three Mile Island

Middletown, Pa., March 28, 1979

A mechanical or electrical failure caused the plant’s main feedwater pumps to stop running, preventing the steam generators from removing heat. This was the start of a meltdown of half of the plant’s reactor core. The accident caused no deaths or injuries, but led to sweeping changes to the U.S. nuclear industry.

Chernobyl

Chernobyl, Ukraine,

April 26, 1986

A power surge caused a fire, destroyed the plant’s nuclear reactor and, as a result, released massive amounts of radioactive material into the air. Two people died immediately and 28 died within the first four months of the accident. Thousands of others suffered acute radiation sickness, and the accident has been linked to thousands of cases of thyroid cancer in children.

Fukushima Dai-ichi

Okuma, Futaba, Japan,

March 11, 2011

An earthquake followed by a tsunami led to a series of meltdowns and explosions at Japan’s Fukushima plant. At the time, two of the six reactors were shut down for maintenance and a third reactor was being refueled. The three remaining reactors shut down after the earthquake, but the tsunami cut off power to the reactors, causing them to overheat. Three deaths have been directly attributed to the accident.

EMPLOYMENT

About 948 people typically work at Plant Vogtle’s two nuclear units, but the number has increased to 1,022 workers, some of whom are training to work at the new reactor sites.

Average pay for Vogtle

nuclear workers ................. $68,791

Current employment

of workers preparing two

new nuclear sites .................. 1,700

Estimated employment

during peak construction

years ........................................ 3,500

Estimated employment

once the two reactors

start producing power ........... 800

EXISTING PLANTS

Nuclear power sites in or close to Georgia:

Georgia

Southern Co.’s Georgia Power

1. Plant Hatch: Appling County

2. Plant Vogtle: Burke County

Alabama

Southern Co.’s Alabama Power

3. Plant Farley: Houston County

Tennessee Valley Authority in Alabama

4. Browns Ferry: Limestone County

5. Bellefonte: Unit 1 under construction in Jackson County

Tennessee

Tennessee Valley Authority

6. Sequoyah: Hamilton County

7. Watts Bar: Rhea County

South Carolina

Duke Energy

8. Catawba: York County

9. Oconee: Oconee County

Progress Energy Carolinas

10. H.B. Robinson: Darlington County

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.

11. Virgil C. Summer: Fairfield County

In progress

More than a dozen utilities have told federal regulators that they intend to build one or more nuclear reactors in the near future. While some have filed formal applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that does not necessarily mean the utility has made a firm decision for a new nuclear project.

Projects listed by 
name, location, company 
and estimated target completion date:

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Berwick, Pa.; Penn. Power 
& Light (PPL); 2018-2020

Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4, near Dallas, Texas; Luminant Generation Co.; 2021.

Fermi Unit 3, Monroe County, Mich.; Detroit Edison Co.; 2020.

Levy County Units 1 and 2, Levy County, Fla.; Progress Energy Florida; 2021

North Anna Unit 3, Louisa County, Va.; Dominion Power; 2020

Shearon Harris Units 2 and 3, Wake County, N.C.; Progress Energy Carolinas; 2020

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 
Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Florida Power and Light Co.; 2022

Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, S.C.; South Carolina Electric & Gas; 2016 and 2019.

Vogtle Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Ga.; Southern Nuclear Operating Co.; 2016-2017.

William States Lee III Units 1 
and 2, Cherokee County, S.C.; 
Duke Energy; 2021.

Key feature at Plant Vogtle: passive design

Some reactor designs include a series of motors and valves that push water over the reactor core to cool it should an accident happen.

With the reactor that will be used at Plant Vogtle, Westinghouse’s AP1000, the “AP” stands for “advanced passive.” That means the design relies on automatic valves, gravity and natural circulation of air to dump water on the reactor to cool it in case of an emergency.

By contrast, the reactor at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant is an active design, which in part led to the reactors melting down after the components failed to work.

The AP1000 “has an inherently safe design,” said Glenn Sjoden, a professor at Georgia Tech’s school of mechanical engineering school. “Even if you cut off all power to the plant, you have a convective cooling loop and will be good for several days while you go and secure the facility. So you could not have a repeat of the Fukushima problem.”

LINK