Showdown at the PSC over Progress Energy, FPL nuke plant charges

As our colleague Robert Trigaux notes in his Venture blog, Friday will bring what promises to be the final showdown at the state Public Service Commission over whether Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light can charge customers years in advance for building new nuclear plants.

Estimated cost for the two plants: $35 billion. The one Progress Energy hopes to build in Levy County accounts for half of that -- $17 billion.

Once viewed as a slam-dunk for the utilities, Trigaux points out, now the question of what the PSC will do is definitely up in the air.

"Critics say investors, not consumers, should bear more of the risk of nuclear power plants," he writes. "And economic circumstances have stalled some of the initial momentum for new nuclear power. Enough so to ask: will Progress Energy itself ultimately decide the nuke plants are no longer worth the growing controversy in the state?"

Further complicating the PSC's decision is Gov. Charlie Crist's selection of two new members in the wake of an ongoing scandal that has led to suggestions that it's time to change how the state regulates its utilities.

--Craig Pittman

Comments

[Thomas Saporito]

Florida does NOT need any more nuclear power plants. Solar power is the future of our state. I am now a candidate for the Office of Governor and will make needed changes to end the use of nuclear power in Florida. Please download a voter petition at www.GOVERNORSAPORITO.com and give me the opportunity to protect our environment for your children.

Thomas Saporito

[Tino]

Mr. Saporito, I hope that you are not basing your campaign on this idea. Ignorance of the difference in baseload and intermittent power is inexcusable.

Are you going to ban cars in favor of bicycles, too?

[Tom]

Don't worry, Tino. I'm sure Mr. Saporito is aware that vanadium redox batteries convert intermittent power into baseload power.

[Tino]

Oh yeah -- those. A system that makes them "less intermittent" but still not baseload, at a price that doubles the cost of the overall power system.

I had better start hoarding candles...

[Tom]

Too bad Tino doesn't know what he's talking about. He never bothered to get the facts from Dr. Alex Domijan at USF's Power Center for Utility Explorations.

[Tino]

I did, and have posted these facts on this blog. Look them up yourself, Einstein.

It's cute to parrot catchphrases (vanadium now!), but it's nowhere near ready for primetime (or any other off-peak hours).

[lonewolf]

Tino is a industry hack.

[Tino]

I'm still waiting for concrete proof that your vanadium batteries are cheap, viable replacements for baseload power plants.

I've done my research and come up with the opposite conclusion, but I'd love to see additional evidence.

I'm more of a "save consumers money and energy" hack. These science projects, while interesting on the laboratory bench, do neither.

[laureyssens]

FPL/PE monopolies with the Help of PSC terrorise and bilk their customers (mostly Seniors )out of money they need to survive ,this is OUTRAGEOUS ,IMMORAL purely CRIMINAL should be percecuted AS ,tbeir grid seized as Public Property and opened to the competition no nukes in the Sunshine state

[paminator]

Tino, you industry shill :-)

I found some numbers on Vanadium Redox batteries for power leveling.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/vandium_reflux_.html

Keep in mind this is a seriously cheerleading source.

We are looking at $7K/kW to build each nuclear reactor, for which we will get about 1GW of continuous power from each reactor.

Lets look at a wind farm plus battery backup to provide the same average power. An offshore wind farm can achieve 33% availability. We need 3GW of wind turbines to provide 1GW of continuous power.
A 3GW offshore wind farm will cost about $4,000/kW (2008 prices), for a total of $12B. We then add on-shore batteries to store up unused production for use when the wind dies down. With a battery capacity of 24 hours of full load (1GW), that gives 24 GWhr of battery capacity. However, the round-trip efficiency of the batteries averages 75%, so we actually need 32 GWhr of battery capacity. At an optimistic pricing of $150/kWhr, this comes to $4.8B. At more realistic pricing of $300/kWhr, this comes to about $10B.

So, we can build a 1GW nuclear reactor for $7B, or we can build a 1GW wind farm/battery complex for $21B to $26B. And, there is still a finite chance that the wind farm system will drop off if wind conditions remain low for more than 24 hours.

The battery system alone costs about the same as a complete nuclear reactor!

Sounds expensive to me.
And wind is cheaper than solar thermal or solar PV.

[Tino]

paminator, that's why the vanadium-smokers have yet to present any numbers.

"We need 3GW of wind turbines to provide 1GW of continuous power."
"And, there is still a finite chance that the wind farm system will drop off if wind conditions remain low for more than 24 hours."

If anything, your numbers are conservative, as low-wind scenarios will happen frequently. Let's also remind our viewers that firm baseload power, such as that from nuclear plants, is worth far more in the open market than intermittent power. You are assuming that wind turbines provide 33% capacity factors around the clock (and never let those batteries run dry). In reality, you might get $60-80/MWh for firm power and $15-25/MWh for non-firm if you can't guarantee the firmness. Your 3 GW system, as configured, still coundn't guarantee 1 GW of firm power.

To get the same revenues out of that power system would require even more wind installed than 3 GW. The economics would look even worse.

Who wants to break the news to laureyssens, the socialist, illiterate terrorist-finger-pointer?

[Tom]

If Tino wants concrete proof, all he has to do is talk to Dr. Alex Domijan at USF's Power Center for Utility Explorations (which incidentally received some of its funding from Progress Energy). But he won't do that.

[paminator]

Tino- Agreed that my analysis has a large rainbow and unicorn fart content. I always try and look for the bright side of a technology!

Tom, having lived in the academic world as a tenured faculty member, I doubt any faculty member will have 'concrete proof' of the economic viability of Vanadium Redox battery backup for wind or solar. Such a claim implies that no further research is needed, which of course is the last thing a faculty member will ever admit.

On the other hand, given that Universities are receiving funding for utility exploration projects, which I think is a good investment of resources (as opposed to the climate change sink hole that has flushed away billions over the years), your use of a faculty member to try and show commercial viability of a technology actually shows exactly the opposite.

[Tom]

Interesting. Dr. Domijan and his staff have been researching vanadium redox batteries for years, but neither Tino nor Paminator will cross-check information with him. Wonder what they're afraid of learning.