Florida Gives Green Light to New Nukes
Florida Power & Light today won state approval to build the state’s first new nuclear plants in more than two decades.
The unanimous decision this morning from the Florida Public Service Commission paved the way for the utility to build two new nuclear plants at its Turkey Point power station, 25 miles south of Miami. It also signalled the state’s unwavering support for new nuclear power, despite cost estimates that have tripled in little more than a year.
The project could cost $12-billion to $24-billion, depending on the type of reactor FPL selects. It would be among the largest investments ever undertaken by the nation’s electric industry, and perhaps the most expensive construction project ever built in Florida.
“This is a very historic day in the state of Florida,” said Commission Chairman Matthew Carter.
Florida needs to diversify its fuel supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure reliable power for its growing population, the commissioners emphasized.
“Simply put, nuclear power is a strategic investment for the state of Florida,” said Commissioner Nathan Skop.
Commissioner Katrina McMurrian echoed his support, saying, “Nuclear power has served us safely, reliably, and economically for decades.”
Customers of the Juno Beach utility could start paying for the reactors next year. A Florida law passed in 2006 allows utilities to charge customers for certain costs years before the plants start producing power. For example, the utility plans to pay $16-million to hold a place in line at Japan Steel Works, the only company in the world that can make the large metal forgings the plants will need.
FPL still has to clear a number of regulatory hurdles before construction can begin. The utility has yet to file a license application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which could take close to three years.
The decision Tuesday is good news for St. Petersburg-based Progress Energy. The utility last week asked the commission for approval to build two new reactors in Levy County, several miles north of its Crystal River power station. Progress Energy estimated the cost at $17-billion, although it insisted that the estimate is “non-binding” and could go much higher.
The price tag for Progress Energy’s nuclear ambitions tripled since the utility announced its plans in late 2006. The skyrocketing costs have reverberated throughout the Southeast, where five other utilities plan similar projects, including Progress Energy’s sister utility in North Carolina.
Plans have been announced for a dozen Westinghouse AP1000 reactors scattered throughout the Southeast. Florida Power & Light is also leaning toward the Westinghouse technology, bringing the total to 14. FPL’s estimate for the Westinghouse reactors ranges from $12-billion to $18-billion.
The nuclear industry is concerned that the new estimates could leave customers with sticker shock. Duke, South Carolina Electric & Gas, and Georgia Power have yet to revise their cost estimates, as negotiations continue with Westinghouse.
The industry is slowly recovering from a credibility hangover from the first round of nuclear construction. The first wave of nuclear plants in the 1960s and early 1970s were built in four to five years, and cost about $500-million, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, construction was taking 10 to 12 years, with costs as high as $5-billion.
Nuclear opponents in Florida worry that the industry could be in for a repeat.
Bill Newton, executive director of the Florida Consumer Action Network, said the utilities have greatly overestimated the need for new power. Florida’s growth has slowed, even as energy efficiency measures become more popular. In addition, the costs of new nuclear could continue to rise, with Florida’s consumers on the hook. Newton worried that Florida’s electric customers could be left holding the bag if the bottom falls out of the industry.
“It’s scary,” Newton said. “It really is.”
-Asjylyn Loder, Times Staff Writer
This is good news. Nuclear is currently the cheapest form of electricity generation, last year in the US averaging about 1.68 cents per kwhr, with an availability of better than 91%.
Posted by: paminator | March 18, 2008 at 05:36 PM
This is bad news. Nuclear is not cheap. Capital costs to build a single nuclear plant are astronomical, construction timeline is 10 years before you see any supposed CO2 emissions benefits, waste piles up on site, etc...
go to Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/
Money would be better spent on a smart grid, efficiency, renewables, and distributed generation.
Posted by: Frank | March 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Sure, all of Frank's solutions are great on paper, but the gains you can wring out of a system due from smart grid initiatives and other initiatives are on the order of single-digit percentages. Public Citizen thinks that every homeowner is willing to spend 10 grand on remodeling their house to make it 25-35% more efficient.
By the time that the nukes come online, Florida's demand will have grown 25-35%, or about 10,000 MW of peak power. What to do?
How much would it cost for 10,000 MW of firm, peak power from renewables? How much land would be required? (hint: $75 billion or more and hundreds of thousands of pristine Florida acres)
Looking at the link, it appears that Public Citizen continues to show its ignorance about electricity by comparing the costs of firm, baseload power from large, centralized power plants to non-firm, intermittant power from renewables. The two are completely different products, and are priced dramatically different in the marketplace. Don't believe me? Go ask a power trader.
And while distributed generation can help in stabilizing the grid, I have yet to see the argument that they are cheaper than large baseload plants. That is a new one to me.
As for its anti-nuclear slant, I always enjoy Public Citizen counting the cost of NRC regulation as a "free subsidy" to the nuclear industry. That's comedy gold.
Posted by: Tino | March 20, 2008 at 03:30 PM