Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › New Florida nuclear plant approved
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Florida nuclear plant approved

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 

First nuclear units approved in Florida in 33 years

Apparently it still needs to get the OK from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and environmental groups, but if all goes to plan it will be in operation by 2019. This will also mean that two coal powered plants will be shut down by 2020.
 

Another article.

I'm pretty happy about it. Thoughts? 

post #2 of 7
Well it is good news about the coal not being needed, but I am skeptical.  It takes more like 18-22 years to get a nuclear plant in operation from what I hear.  Being coastal, Florida should have other options for producing energy, and I can at least hope that in 20 years we have come up with something new.

We are fighting coal here so believe me, I am happy for you.  It just seems unbelievable that's all.  I also heard that you guys were going to have to pay a pretty penny starting soon in order to finance that plant, let's hope they don't change their mind after rate-hikes!
post #3 of 7
I am all for the nuclear plants - properly built not in the Russian style!

One thing I admire here in Turkey is that when something does get started it gets completed in short order - you don't see all the lawsuits from people holding out for higher land prices etc. I always remember freeways taking forever to complete due to individual lawsuits.

The nuke plant should be in the 5 year range of actual construction. 

In much of the world all the various groups try to compete to see who can be the most obstructionist at times. Like the Greenpeace & Kimberley Clark thing today - many of those not directly involved feel like they have to complain the Greenpeace didn't hold out for more - after the fact of course.  

I read today where Greenpeace is planning on salting an area off Sweden where they use the drag nets for fishing with large boulders. Very good to mess up that action. 
post #4 of 7
If I lived there I wouldn't be too happy about paying for electricity a decade before it's produced.

Quote:
Although the plant won't start producing power until March 2018 at the earliest, customers are already paying for its construction. In January, customers saw a monthly increase of $12.11 per 1,000 kilowatt hours to pay for nuclear projects, sparking such an uproar that the utility then lowered its rates, reducing the monthly nuclear charge to $4.31 per 1,000 kilowatt hours.

Climate Progress did a story on this project back in May.

A decade is a pretty good ballpark for how long it takes a new nuclear plant to get online, although they always run over schedule and budget.  So you're probably looking in the early 2020s, realistically.

Anyway, it's certainly good that it's replacing 2 coal power plants.  I'm just glad I don't have to pay for the project
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
Yeah luckily I'm not a Progress Energy customer. I believe my university is though so I'll probably end up paying the extra costs in some way.

But an increase in electricity costs would be expected in order to fund any new power plant wouldn't it? 
post #6 of 7
No I think the standard procedure is for a utility to fund the construction of a new power plant itself, and then possibly raise prices once it's built to recoup expenses, if necessary.  I think the difference here is that new nukes are so expensive, in order to fund them they have to raise prices up front.  That's my impression anyway.
post #7 of 7
I don't know other places but two that I am aware of are:

Washington State - Whoops disaster - farmers playing with mega-business and the customer ended up footing the bill - Washington went from the cheapest power in the US (due to hydroelectric) to among the most expensive when they shut the project down. This is a bit different as it was a power co-op

North Carolina - The customer pays as the thing is built and is on the hook for ALL expenses. When the shutdown part of the Cherokee project we ended up paying rather large shutdown fees. In that case - pay big early and pay bigger later.

In both of the above cases, the projects were shutdown due to bad electrical requirement projections - by many people and parties.

Much of the time in the US spent on nuclear construction is not construction at all but legal time. The 2018 date allows time for all the permitting process to be completed. As a retired construction manager I am positive in my mind that 5 years is more than adequate providing all permitting, engineering, funding, legal etc is completed or ready as per program. 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: News & Policy
Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › New Florida nuclear plant approved