Two US nuclear plants will start operating on 2021 and 2022

Georgia Power announced yesterday that Southern Nuclear has made significant progress on construction of units 3 and 4 of the Vogtle nuclear power plant since assuming project management on behalf of the project co-owners. Their share of forecasted cost of project has increased however from USD7.3 billion to USD8.4 billion.

The total costs are nearing $17 billion.

The project is majority owned by Georgia Power (45.7%), with co-owners Oglethorpe Power (30%), MEAG Power (22.7%) and Dalton city (1.6%).

They are still expected to start operations in November 2021 (unit 3) and November 2022 (unit 4).

39 thoughts on “Two US nuclear plants will start operating on 2021 and 2022”

  1. bank sociopaths” I have the perfect meme on that….but alas! Brian insists on krappy commenting systems where I can’t attach images.

  2. bank sociopaths””I have the perfect meme on that….but alas! Brian insists on krappy commenting systems where I can’t attach images.”””

  3. The reason it costs so much is that widespread anti-nuclear hysteria has created a regulatory regime in which prevents nuclear power plants from being built in a timely, cost-efficient manner. In 1971 the DC District court ruled in the court case “Calvert Cliffs” that the Atomic Energy Agency had to abide by a mandate to issue “environmental impact statements” for any proposed action, which halted all licenses for new nuclear plants to 18 months and dramatically curtailed all future approvals. In 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was solely focused on “protecting public safety” by regulating the nuclear industry out of existence. The cost of constructing a nuclear plant rose from $594 million in 1969 to $7 billion in 2016 (both 2017 dollars). The time to construct a nuclear plant rose from 4 years to 10 years. The forecast 1,000 nuclear power plants by 2000 turned to a near moratorium on new nuclear power plant approval and a precipitous drop in development of next-generation technologies (today we have just 99 nuclear plants in the US). The same hysterical-trend happened in every western country accelerating after those rare nuclear accidents which did occure (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukashima). France was smart enough to buck the trend, which is why 77% of their electricity needs are provided by nuclear power and why they have the lowest per-capita carbon footprint of any developed country.

  4. The reason it costs so much is that widespread anti-nuclear hysteria has created a regulatory regime in which prevents nuclear power plants from being built in a timely cost-efficient manner. In 1971 the DC District court ruled in the court case Calvert Cliffs”” that the Atomic Energy Agency had to abide by a mandate to issue “”””environmental impact statements”””” for any proposed action”” which halted all licenses for new nuclear plants to 18 months and dramatically curtailed all future approvals. In 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”” which was solely focused on “”””protecting public safety”””” by regulating the nuclear industry out of existence. The cost of constructing a nuclear plant rose from $594 million in 1969 to $7 billion in 2016 (both 2017 dollars). The time to construct a nuclear plant rose from 4 years to 10 years. The forecast 1″”000 nuclear power plants by 2000 turned to a near moratorium on new nuclear power plant approval and a precipitous drop in development of next-generation technologies (today we have just 99 nuclear plants in the US). The same hysterical-trend happened in every western country accelerating after those rare nuclear accidents which did occure (Three Mile Island Chernobyl Fukashima). France was smart enough to buck the trend”” which is why 77{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their electricity needs are provided by nuclear power and why they have the lowest per-capita carbon footprint of any developed country.”””

  5. An environmental impact evaluation is a good thing and it doesn’t sound extremely costly even if it caused some delays, as you claim it did, in 1971. Environmental evaluation for an oil refinery or a chemical plant seems (or just farm runoff) more appropriate than one for a nuke plant – I’ll give you that. If you’ve read the sequence of events and complicating factors of TMI – how it went down – you would see that the industry had a very young attitude back then. Good experience came out of TMI – we operate better because of that mistake. Fukushima will not provide the same learning experience. Commercial operators do need a stern regulator; without it they will play fast and loose. Whatever the solution is, eliminating oversight ain’t going to happen…

  6. An environmental impact evaluation is a good thing and it doesn’t sound extremely costly even if it caused some delays as you claim it did in 1971. Environmental evaluation for an oil refinery or a chemical plant seems (or just farm runoff) more appropriate than one for a nuke plant – I’ll give you that. If you’ve read the sequence of events and complicating factors of TMI – how it went down – you would see that the industry had a very young attitude back then. Good experience came out of TMI – we operate better because of that mistake. Fukushima will not provide the same learning experience.Commercial operators do need a stern regulator; without it they will play fast and loose. Whatever the solution is eliminating oversight ain’t going to happen…

  7. So publish it elsewhere, give it a unique name, and give us the corresponding search term. Of course that’s a fair bit of work. I haven’t got an image that I’m quite willing to go to that much effort for, yet.

  8. So publish it elsewhere give it a unique name and give us the corresponding search term.Of course that’s a fair bit of work. I haven’t got an image that I’m quite willing to go to that much effort for yet.

  9. I saw the figure two days’ ago of $7.3 billion cost for construction of both Sanmen 1 & 2. (The latest Wikipedia figure was $6.12 billion.) If correct, that is just about $3.37/watt. Much of the cost bloat in the USA is due to the hostility of the NRC (doing service to coal and natural gas, with an assist from their lapdogs who suck up tax subsidies: wind and solar). There is “regulatory capture” but not as is typical, by the target industry, but by its competitors. I predicted several years’ ago that China (with an assist from Russia) would take over the world regulatory regime in order to assist their export of nuclear plants, but only when they had a product ready for the world market. Yesterday, this good news was reported: “SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s State Council said it would promote the use of China’s nuclear industry’s independent technological standards worldwide, aiming to play “a leading role” in the global standardization process by 2027.” This, as the first HRC 1000 (Hualong One) reactor is about a year from completion, under construction at two Chinese sites and also in Pakistan. Why should China put up with a corrupt regulatory regime “on the NRC model” that mandates massive overstaffing, tons of useless paperwork, an absurd hysteria about harmless levels of radioactivity, delays construction and mandates absurd change-orders to assist the bank sociopaths to run up loan interest, and insists that theory should exist in virginal separation from practice so they can theorize about license applications at $300/an hour, until hell freezes over (or rather, Antarctica melts). “Go ThorCon!” by the way. Frack the NRC!

  10. I saw the figure two days’ ago of $7.3 billion cost for construction of both Sanmen 1 & 2. (The latest Wikipedia figure was $6.12 billion.) If correct that is just about $3.37/watt. Much of the cost bloat in the USA is due to the hostility of the NRC (doing service to coal and natural gas with an assist from their lapdogs who suck up tax subsidies: wind and solar). There is regulatory capture”” but not as is typical”” by the target industry but by its competitors. I predicted several years’ ago that China (with an assist from Russia) would take over the world regulatory regime in order to assist their export of nuclear plants but only when they had a product ready for the world market. Yesterday”” this good news was reported: “”””SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s State Council said it would promote the use of China’s nuclear industry’s independent technological standards worldwide”””” aiming to play “a leading role” in the global standardization process by 2027.”””” This”” as the first HRC 1000 (Hualong One) reactor is about a year from completion”” under construction at two Chinese sites and also in Pakistan. Why should China put up with a corrupt regulatory regime “”””on the NRC model”””” that mandates massive overstaffing”” tons of useless paperwork an absurd hysteria about harmless levels of radioactivity delays construction and mandates absurd change-orders to assist the bank sociopaths to run up loan interest and insists that theory should exist in virginal separation from practice so they can theorize about license applications at $300/an hour until hell freezes over (or rather”” Antarctica melts). “”””Go ThorCon!”””” by the way. Frack the NRC!”””””””

  11. Ok ,maybe ,and ,if Westinghouse bankruptcy ,where is a reactor constructions storage ? Lost ? No , use in today ,in place ,named Vogtle .It is not a cheap ,is a ,,zero money ,, !

  12. Ok maybe and if Westinghouse bankruptcy where is a reactor constructions storage ? Lost ? No use in today in place named Vogtle .It is not a cheap is a zero money !

  13. Vogte AP1000: $17 billion for 2.2 GW = $7.7 per watt of capacity is very expensive. Who knows what China spent for their AP1000s ?

  14. Vogte AP1000: $17 billion for 2.2 GW = $7.7 per watt of capacity is very expensive.Who knows what China spent for their AP1000s ?

  15. These plants are new in the sense they will soon be coming on line, but they are the same old light water reactors that have been build since the navy chose them. Fission energy will get cheaper when new technologies that are are inherently cheaper to build, and operate are deployed. Likely, this will turn out to be some flavor of molten salt reactor, due to the low pressure operation of it’s primary, and secondary coolant, it’s ability to deliver higher temperature heat, it’s ability to use cheaper fuel more completely with no fuel shuffling, it’s self limiting temperature, it’s ability to remove fission daughters from the reactor fuel, and the ease of quenching the fission reaction by draining the fuel into a large flat pan. The advantages of these reactor designs are legion.

  16. These plants are new in the sense they will soon be coming on line but they are the same old light water reactors that have been build since the navy chose them. Fission energy will get cheaper when new technologies that are are inherently cheaper to build and operate are deployed. Likely this will turn out to be some flavor of molten salt reactor due to the low pressure operation of it’s primary and secondary coolant it’s ability to deliver higher temperature heat it’s ability to use cheaper fuel more completely with no fuel shuffling it’s self limiting temperature it’s ability to remove fission daughters from the reactor fuel and the ease of quenching the fission reaction by draining the fuel into a large flat pan. The advantages of these reactor designs are legion.

  17. It is disappointing, you’re right. 2 units @ 1,100MW $30/MW-h 94% capacity factor (17 months online per 18 months) = $544M/year revenue 1,000 people employed $100,000/year/person salary = -$100M/year payroll 2 units refueled 0.68 times/year $90M/reload = -$122M/year fuel cost Total construction costs $17B $17B/($544M – $100M – $121M) = 51 years So, in a galaxy where the interest rate is 0% APR the new Vogtle plants could pay themselves off 9 years before the end of their design life IF run as a non-profit. Maybe electric cars can jack the wholesale cost of electricity up to $90/MW-h so they can pay the investment off sooner. It’s bleak.

  18. It is disappointing you’re right.2 units @ 1100MW$30/MW-h94{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} capacity factor (17 months online per 18 months)= $544M/year revenue1000 people employed$100000/year/person salary= -$100M/year payroll2 units refueled 0.68 times/year$90M/reload= -$122M/year fuel costTotal construction costs $17B$17B/($544M – $100M – $121M) = 51 yearsSo in a galaxy where the interest rate is 0{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} APR the new Vogtle plants could pay themselves off 9 years before the end of their design life IF run as a non-profit.Maybe electric cars can jack the wholesale cost of electricity up to $90/MW-h so they can pay the investment off sooner. It’s bleak.

  19. There are articles here all the time talking about how nuclear is getting cheaper. The reality still seems to be incredible cost overruns.

  20. There are articles here all the time talking about how nuclear is getting cheaper.The reality still seems to be incredible cost overruns.

  21. So publish it elsewhere, give it a unique name, and give us the corresponding search term.

    Of course that’s a fair bit of work. I haven’t got an image that I’m quite willing to go to that much effort for, yet.

  22. An environmental impact evaluation is a good thing and it doesn’t sound extremely costly even if it caused some delays, as you claim it did, in 1971. Environmental evaluation for an oil refinery or a chemical plant seems (or just farm runoff) more appropriate than one for a nuke plant – I’ll give you that.

    If you’ve read the sequence of events and complicating factors of TMI – how it went down – you would see that the industry had a very young attitude back then. Good experience came out of TMI – we operate better because of that mistake. Fukushima will not provide the same learning experience.

    Commercial operators do need a stern regulator; without it they will play fast and loose. Whatever the solution is, eliminating oversight ain’t going to happen…

  23. The reason it costs so much is that widespread anti-nuclear hysteria has created a regulatory regime in which prevents nuclear power plants from being built in a timely, cost-efficient manner. In 1971 the DC District court ruled in the court case “Calvert Cliffs” that the Atomic Energy Agency had to abide by a mandate to issue “environmental impact statements” for any proposed action, which halted all licenses for new nuclear plants to 18 months and dramatically curtailed all future approvals. In 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished and replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was solely focused on “protecting public safety” by regulating the nuclear industry out of existence. The cost of constructing a nuclear plant rose from $594 million in 1969 to $7 billion in 2016 (both 2017 dollars). The time to construct a nuclear plant rose from 4 years to 10 years. The forecast 1,000 nuclear power plants by 2000 turned to a near moratorium on new nuclear power plant approval and a precipitous drop in development of next-generation technologies (today we have just 99 nuclear plants in the US). The same hysterical-trend happened in every western country accelerating after those rare nuclear accidents which did occure (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukashima). France was smart enough to buck the trend, which is why 77% of their electricity needs are provided by nuclear power and why they have the lowest per-capita carbon footprint of any developed country.

  24. I saw the figure two days’ ago of $7.3 billion cost for construction of both Sanmen 1 & 2. (The latest Wikipedia figure was $6.12 billion.) If correct, that is just about $3.37/watt. Much of the cost bloat in the USA is due to the hostility of the NRC (doing service to coal and natural gas, with an assist from their lapdogs who suck up tax subsidies: wind and solar). There is “regulatory capture” but not as is typical, by the target industry, but by its competitors. I predicted several years’ ago that China (with an assist from Russia) would take over the world regulatory regime in order to assist their export of nuclear plants, but only when they had a product ready for the world market. Yesterday, this good news was reported: “SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s State Council said it would promote the use of China’s nuclear industry’s independent technological standards worldwide, aiming to play “a leading role” in the global standardization process by 2027.” This, as the first HRC 1000 (Hualong One) reactor is about a year from completion, under construction at two Chinese sites and also in Pakistan. Why should China put up with a corrupt regulatory regime “on the NRC model” that mandates massive overstaffing, tons of useless paperwork, an absurd hysteria about harmless levels of radioactivity, delays construction and mandates absurd change-orders to assist the bank sociopaths to run up loan interest, and insists that theory should exist in virginal separation from practice so they can theorize about license applications at $300/an hour, until hell freezes over (or rather, Antarctica melts). “Go ThorCon!” by the way. Frack the NRC!

  25. Ok ,maybe ,and ,if Westinghouse bankruptcy ,where is a reactor constructions storage ? Lost ? No , use in today ,in place ,named Vogtle .It is not a cheap ,is a ,,zero money ,, !

  26. These plants are new in the sense they will soon be coming on line, but they are the same old light water reactors that have been build since the navy chose them. Fission energy will get cheaper when new technologies that are are inherently cheaper to build, and operate are deployed.
    Likely, this will turn out to be some flavor of molten salt reactor, due to the low pressure operation of it’s primary, and secondary coolant, it’s ability to deliver higher temperature heat, it’s ability to use cheaper fuel more completely with no fuel shuffling, it’s self limiting temperature, it’s ability to remove fission daughters from the reactor fuel, and the ease of quenching the fission reaction by draining the fuel into a large flat pan. The advantages of these reactor designs are legion.

  27. It is disappointing, you’re right.

    2 units @ 1,100MW
    $30/MW-h
    94% capacity factor (17 months online per 18 months)
    = $544M/year revenue

    1,000 people employed
    $100,000/year/person salary
    = -$100M/year payroll

    2 units refueled 0.68 times/year
    $90M/reload
    = -$122M/year fuel cost

    Total construction costs $17B
    $17B/($544M – $100M – $121M) = 51 years

    So, in a galaxy where the interest rate is 0% APR the new Vogtle plants could pay themselves off 9 years before the end of their design life IF run as a non-profit.

    Maybe electric cars can jack the wholesale cost of electricity up to $90/MW-h so they can pay the investment off sooner.

    It’s bleak.

Comments are closed.