Some leaders souring on nuclear power costs
ATLANTA (AP) - As the cost of building a new nuclear plant soars, there are signs of buyer's remorse.
The second-guessing from officials in Georgia and Florida is a sign that maybe the nation is not quite ready for a nuclear renaissance. On top of construction costs running much higher than expected, the price of natural gas has plummeted, making it tough for nuclear plants to compete in the energy market.
In Georgia last week, Southern Co. told regulators it needed to raise its construction budget for Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia by $737 million to $6.85 billion. At about the same time, a Georgia lawmaker sought to penalize the company for going over budget, announcing a proposal to cut into Southern Co.'s profits by trimming some of the money its subsidiary Georgia Power makes.
The legislation has a coalition of tea party, conservative and consumer advocacy groups behind it, but faces a tough sale in the Republican-controlled General Assembly. GOP Rep. Jeff Chapman found just a single co-sponsor, Democratic Rep. Karla Drenner.
As a regulated monopoly, Georgia Power currently earns about 11 percent in profits when it invests its own money into power projects. Chapman's legislation would reduce those profits if the nuclear project is over budget, as is the current projection.
"Conservatives do not believe in incentivizing failure," Debbie Dooley, a co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party, recently told Georgia lawmakers. "They should not profit from this mistake."
Southern Co. has said the nuclear plant is still a better economic deal than the alternatives over the long run.
In Florida, lawmakers want to end the practice of utilities collecting fees from customers before any electricity is produced.
"The price tag keeps going up. The timeframe they are going to build it has been extended year after year after year," said state Rep. Mike Fasano, a Republican and self-described nuclear power supporter.
Fasano's bill would eliminate advance collections; a Democratic lawmaker filed a similar proposal.
"A lot of people are paying for something that they'll never see any return on their money," Fasano said.
The fees have also been targeted in court, but the Florida Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether to overturn them.
Southern Co. also benefits from advanced collections, though Georgia lawmakers have not focused on that money.
The Florida Public Service Commission voted in November to allow the state's two largest utilities to charge customers for $294 million this year for the costs of future nuclear facilities.
Progress Energy Florida, which has been purchased by North Carolina-based Duke Energy, has collected more than $819 million from its customers for two nuclear projects, according to the Florida Public Service Commission.
One was to expand the capacity of the now-crippled Crystal River plant, work that resulted in damage that shut down the facility.
The utility was also using the fee to pursue a new nuclear plant in Levy County.
Progress Energy Florida still needs a license for the plant from federal regulators and pushed back the opening of the first Levy County reactor to 2024. Some question whether it will be built at all.
Four GOP senators in Florida said recently they will seek to put limits on the collections. Lawmakers said their upcoming bill will set a deadline for utilities to start construction and make sure power companies cannot earn a profit off any prepayments if they do not build a nuclear facility.
"On the details, there is plenty of room for conversation," Sen. John Legg said at a Feb. 21 news conference. "But on these three principles there will be no room for compromise."
___
AP reporter Bill Kaczor contributed to this report from Tallahassee, Fla.
The second-guessing from officials in Georgia and Florida is a sign that maybe the nation is not quite ready for a nuclear renaissance. On top of construction costs running much higher than expected, the price of natural gas has plummeted, making it tough for nuclear plants to compete in the energy market.
In Georgia last week, Southern Co. told regulators it needed to raise its construction budget for Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia by $737 million to $6.85 billion. At about the same time, a Georgia lawmaker sought to penalize the company for going over budget, announcing a proposal to cut into Southern Co.'s profits by trimming some of the money its subsidiary Georgia Power makes.
The legislation has a coalition of tea party, conservative and consumer advocacy groups behind it, but faces a tough sale in the Republican-controlled General Assembly. GOP Rep. Jeff Chapman found just a single co-sponsor, Democratic Rep. Karla Drenner.
As a regulated monopoly, Georgia Power currently earns about 11 percent in profits when it invests its own money into power projects. Chapman's legislation would reduce those profits if the nuclear project is over budget, as is the current projection.
"Conservatives do not believe in incentivizing failure," Debbie Dooley, a co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party, recently told Georgia lawmakers. "They should not profit from this mistake."
Southern Co. has said the nuclear plant is still a better economic deal than the alternatives over the long run.
In Florida, lawmakers want to end the practice of utilities collecting fees from customers before any electricity is produced.
"The price tag keeps going up. The timeframe they are going to build it has been extended year after year after year," said state Rep. Mike Fasano, a Republican and self-described nuclear power supporter.
Fasano's bill would eliminate advance collections; a Democratic lawmaker filed a similar proposal.
"A lot of people are paying for something that they'll never see any return on their money," Fasano said.
The fees have also been targeted in court, but the Florida Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether to overturn them.
Southern Co. also benefits from advanced collections, though Georgia lawmakers have not focused on that money.
The Florida Public Service Commission voted in November to allow the state's two largest utilities to charge customers for $294 million this year for the costs of future nuclear facilities.
Progress Energy Florida, which has been purchased by North Carolina-based Duke Energy, has collected more than $819 million from its customers for two nuclear projects, according to the Florida Public Service Commission.
One was to expand the capacity of the now-crippled Crystal River plant, work that resulted in damage that shut down the facility.
The utility was also using the fee to pursue a new nuclear plant in Levy County.
Progress Energy Florida still needs a license for the plant from federal regulators and pushed back the opening of the first Levy County reactor to 2024. Some question whether it will be built at all.
Four GOP senators in Florida said recently they will seek to put limits on the collections. Lawmakers said their upcoming bill will set a deadline for utilities to start construction and make sure power companies cannot earn a profit off any prepayments if they do not build a nuclear facility.
"On the details, there is plenty of room for conversation," Sen. John Legg said at a Feb. 21 news conference. "But on these three principles there will be no room for compromise."
___
AP reporter Bill Kaczor contributed to this report from Tallahassee, Fla.
No nuclear means using a lot more coal, NG or hydro to meet our energy needs.
Solar energy is a pipe dream at this point. It produces less than 1% or the worlds need for energy. Coal is number one at 42% NG (21%), hydro (16%) and nuclear (13%) in the top 4.
To make the world economic system work we need energy. There isn't one energy source that is perfect. All have their short comings and current nuclear technology has the least concern for long term environmental impact.
The newest nuclear technology has much less waste and are way safer than the Chernobyl technology of old plus they can generate a huge amount of electricity compared to any other energy source with current technology.
@RalphCramden While I feel that nuclear energy is the future, the track record in the US is troubling at best.
Almost every nuclear plant built in the US was heavily subsidized (if by a private company) or built by the government. Every singe one has gone over budget, and none have met the "ROI" in the planning documents. When audited, 95% of all reactors showed the construction phase included cutting corners and efforts to avoid required scrutiny with false documents, misdirection, and in too many cases, bribes to inspectors.
Disaster planning requirements are too lax in most states (Georgia doesn't even require a specific planned "exclusion zone" for evacuation in the event of a catastrophic failure). FUkushima should have taught us something, but we've missed the lesson.
Some of this is government incompetence and some of it is Private greed. It is not a promising place to start.
@ShallowEnder
The overall track record world wide is pretty good. There are few instances of a nuclear plant going "nuclear" so to speak.
Chernobyl was a throw back to a cheaper 1st generation plant when there was newer technology available but the USSR was into cutting corners. Fukushima designers did not look ahead and prepare for the worst case scenario which should have been a no brainer in earthquake prone Japan.
There are now backyard nukes that will run 20,000 homes for 8-10 years that are very safe and will only produce waste the size of a football and most of that can be reprocessed to reduce the size even smaller.
Almost all nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and have an excellent safety record.
As we get better and smarter at it we can make better use of this technology.
It took decades before we installed seatbelts in cars and a lot of folks died before that technology was "discovered". Sometimes there has to be disasters before we get it right. Dams have killed a lot of folks when they failed and we seem to be making better dams these days.
@ShallowEnder
I agree with that. We need to make sure it's done right as with anything that has significant potential to cause death and disability.
@RalphCramden @ShallowEnder I have no problem with the technology (I two nephews serving on nuclear subs, and my daughter has served on nuclear carriers). I have a problem with the ethics and reliability of the companies building and maintaining the technology. They have a long reputation of prizing profit over safety, following the law, and telling the truth.
This isn't a technology that we should be trying to deliver "on the cheap". The potential for harm (read: 100,000+ body count) is too great.
"Leaders souring on nuclear costs"............
But the exorbitant and wasteful costs of solar are okay??
Boy that Dept. of Energy that costs and wastes billions and billions of dollars every year is doing a bang up job !!
@Rob C 503Â Come on, use some common sense. Â The foray into solar energy was to create clean energy. Â A bit different than a Nuclear power station eh?
Because we all need a little piece of Chernobyl in our back yards right? Â Â
@Silver Surfer @Rob C 503Â
Solar energy is not clean energy. It leaves some pretty nasty byproducts in it's wake that has to be dealt with. Once the panels are at the end of the life cycle they just can't go into the land fill and have to be treated as toxic waste.
Only those with their head in the sand believe that it is both economically viable and environmentally clean. Those who actually know the industry and economics thank the feds for all the money they are pumping into the industry so they can get rich. Once the subsidies run out the solar industry will go away just like it did in the Carter era.
@Silver Surfer @Rob C 503  """""Come on, use some common sense. """"""
Ya,  cause the feds investing  HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS  in solar companies only to watch them go bankrupt as soon as the federal green dries up is the smart thing to do......
{rolleyes}
@Icarus @kramrÂ
China is making solar panels due to the demand from the tax credits in the US. Nothing more. If China can make money on a product they will produce that product.
The US has artificially created a huge demand in the solar panel market with the spending of tax dollars. Once that subsidy dries up then watch the solar market collapse like it did when Carter did that during his presidency.
There is no way that solar can compete on a level playing field with any other form of energy. I have solar electric, solar hot water, wind generation and know all the plusses and minuses of each source.
The tax payers have graciously given me over $30,000 of tax credits so that I can power my homes with solar energy. Because of their generous donations I can save about $20,000 off my electric bill during the life of the panels.
Thank you tax payers for giving me all that money.
@kramr
You do realize that is a bad example because of all the politics involved. China is forging ahead in Solar because America backed out politically....China sees the writing on the wall and America is constantly falling behind due to ideology and internal squabbling....perhaps a centralized managed government system is better than a "decentralized individualistic state" ....America certainly hasn't been proving itself either economically and since the 30 century is over it is unlikely that military force will be of great consequence.  World powers are defined by economies in the21st century..
Oil is running out and America needs to position itself as the leader and answer man for alternative energies.Â
@Silver Surfer ........didnt work though either ! And do you think perhaps technology has progressed just a tad mor than Chernobyl?? Nothing is stagnant except the energy policies of this country !
@Rob C 503 Chernobyl was human error and bad PLC programming and nothing has progressed so far as to eliminate those a factors in any disaster and as an example I would site the millions of annual car crashes. The only reason that atomic energy doesn't look so good is that there are still cheaper alternatives and that...my fair weather friend....is a ticking clock auction that runs faster the more that people/corporations squander resources.