Latest news with #Vogtle3
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
South Carolina considers reviving failed $9B nuclear project
With growing demand for carbon-free, around-the-clock energy, more and more utilities, politicians and developers are looking toward nuclear power as a potential solution. The trouble is, for decades, U.S. nuclear development has been rare, slow and exceedingly expensive And the list of failed projects greatly outnumbers the completed nuclear reactors in the past 30 years. In South Carolina, Virgil C. Summer is the most recent and dramatic of such failures. Efforts to build two new nuclear reactors at the site, about an hour and a half south of Charlotte, were canceled in 2017 after massive cost overruns and a series of construction delays. In the end, the reactors were left less than half complete, the developer, Westinghouse, declared bankruptcy, executives from South Carolina Gas and Electric, as well as Westinghouse, were indicted on fraud charges and ratepayers were stuck with a $9 billion bill. They're still paying on their energy bills today. Now, the Governor's Nuclear Advisory Council is advocating for the project to get a second look, potentially becoming the first and second nuclear reactors to come online since the completion of Georgia's Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors. Why try again? While some may see V.C. Summer as a lost cause, Jim Little sees a site ripe for a second chance. As the industry representative of the Governor's Nuclear Advisory Council, he and Chairman Rick Lee visited the plant last fall to get a better understanding of where things left off when the project was canceled seven years ago. Instead of seeing the decaying ruins of a failed project, Little said he was pleasantly surprised to see most of the construction well-preserved. 'It looked like work had stopped a few months ago, not seven years ago,' he said. READ: Federal funding restored for air quality monitoring after nonprofit sues Trump administration According to Little, any new effort to build the two new reactors still had a chance of picking up where the last efforts left off. In a report to the governor, the council endorsed an inspection and analysis of the cost and construction schedule to complete VC Summer once and for all. Optimistically, Little believes a VC Summer project that gets permitted and off the ground quickly could be operational in the next five years, which would be impossible for any nuclear reactor construction starting from scratch. 'If this can be done successfully, everything's upside,' Little said. For Tom Ervin, a former Public Service Commissioner, who regulates South Carolina's utilities and works to set energy rates, that's a big 'if.' 'It's a big mistake,' he said. 'It's going to cost time, delays and much higher utility rates for all utility customers, small businesses, residents and even large manufacturers are going to struggle with these new rates.' Ervin points to the recent commissioning of Vogtle 3 and 4, which have led to massive rate increases in Georgia to cover the project's more than $35 billion budget, a far cry from the $14 billion initially proposed in 2009. With South Carolina ratepayers already stuck with a $9 billion bill from the failed VC project, Ervin believes they shouldn't be on the hook for another cent. 'Nuclear construction is so expensive and so complex,' he said. 'It's not a good option for us.' Would things be different this time? The nuclear picture in the United States has changed since 2017. While Vogtle 3 and 4 faced numerous delays and massive budget overruns, the reactors were eventually completed and are providing 1.1 GW of around-the-clock clean energy each. The reactors at V.C. Summer are the exact same design, the AP 1000, so Little said it stands to reason that what's been done once can be done again. 'You can take advantage of all the lessons learned, the experience, the talent and the solutions on Vogtle and simply apply them to Virgil Summer,' he said. READ: Solarize Charlotte-Mecklenburg to launch in June According to Sola Talabi, president of Pittsburgh Technical and a former risk manager with Westinghouse's AP 1000 projects, the best way to avoid the same costly mistakes is to plan for them from the beginning. 'When projects are being executed, it's almost like driving a car, and the driver has to be fully engaged, with their hands on the steering wheel, with their eyes on the road,' he said. 'That's not the time to learn about how the car works or, you know, trying to figure out where you're going, right?' When Vogtle and V.C. Summer were under construction, they were first-of-a-kind projects in the United States, Talabi explained. Their construction teams had to face and adjust to first-of-a-kind challenges in real time without the benefit of a road map. For any new AP 1000 construction, crews should be informed of potential delays and challenges up front so they know how to recognize and respond to them as quickly as possible, rather than relearning the lessons of the first crews in real time. Talabi also believes time is of the essence. With the Vogtle project complete in 2024, every year that projects like V.C. Summer wait, the harder it will be to put the practical knowledge base of the Vogtle team to use. 'There's attrition of that knowledge. You have people retiring every day,' he said. 'Then you have potentially more competition for the available resources, because we expect that there would be, in the coming years, a significant increase in nuclear power plant construction, and there'll be competition for these resources.' Talabi expects there will be more risk for the 'first mover' after Vogtle, but with so many other utilities across the country eyeing potential nuclear projects, he said late movers may suffer delays due to a shortage of qualified workers already busy on other projects. 'A little bit of activity [in nuclear] has started, but again, in a few years, in about two years, I'd expect there'd be significantly more,' he said. If not nuclear, then what? Nuclear is not the only way to provide large amounts of around-the-clock power or decarbonize the energy grid. Ervin advocates for more investment in solar plus battery storage to balance out the intermittency inherent in renewable energy. He said that's the fastest way to get new power online, and for those skeptical of the limitations of renewable energy, he said the answer is natural gas, not nuclear. 'If you want to have power generation in the next decade or so, what we need to do is look at alternatives that are much less costly,' he said. 'Natural gas plants are also cheaper to build and take less time to build, and so most utilities around the country are turning to gas plants for short-term solution, not nuclear.' Little argues, while there are other options, none are going to give you the output and reliability that nuclear can, especially given South Carolina's historic reliance on nuclear power. What's next? Santee Cooper, which owns part of the V.C. Summer site, put out a request for proposals to complete construction on the two new nuclear reactors and in a release, the utility announced it got a 'strong response.' A spokesperson would not clarify how many bids Santee Cooper received. The utility will spend the next nine to 18 months reviewing those bids. Santee Cooper has said it does not want to own or operate the new V.C. Summer reactors should they come online. READ: Duke medical students research fungal growth in the aftermath of Helene Should a company come in to get the project restarted, they would need to obtain new federal permits and licensing through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as the project's former permits were terminated at the time of cancellation. Inspectors with the NRC would also have to come out to the site and determine how much of the former project is build-ready and what work would need to be redone. Little sees these hurdles as minor obstacles any responsible project manager could overcome. He believes that with enough interest from large customers like data centers, there should be enough capital investment to shield South Carolina ratepayers from the financial burden they faced last time. More importantly, Little believes this project could prove the United States can build nuclear again. 'Can America lead? Everybody's saying, 'has America lost its leadership in nuclear power?'' He said. 'This isn't just about a project. It's about a second chance.' Should the project fail again, however, Ervin believes that should be the final nail in the coffin for the industry. 'We had a really horrific experience in South Carolina, which I hope will never be repeated anywhere else,' he said. 'To start from scratch in this kind of environment is just not it's not a wise decision at all.' WATCH: Duke medical students research fungal growth in the aftermath of Helene
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Tariffs Are Threatening a $3 Billion Nuclear Power Plant Restart in Michigan
Donald Trump's trade policies have disrupted every sector of the economy, including energy. A nuclear power plant project in Michigan could be the latest victim of the president's tariffs. In 2024, the Palisades Nuclear Plant, which was closed in 2022, received a loan guarantee of $1.52 billion from the Energy Department. With additional funding from the state of Michigan, Holtec Palisades (which owns the power plant) has received over $3 billion to restart the plant with two 300 megawatt small modular reactors developed by Hyundai Engineering and Construction. If brought back online, it would be the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. to restart after being scheduled for decommissioning. Even though it was a favored Biden administration project, the restart has received support from Trump's Energy Department, which approved a $57 million loan disbursement in March. Still, the government's subsidies aren't shielding the Palisades plant from the impacts of Trump's protectionist agenda. Bloomberg recently reported that the project's South Korean developer is reconsidering its procurement plans to account for tariffs. "We're carefully considering various options to avoid passing additional costs on to the project owner or US consumers," Chanho Ahn, director of new energy at Hyundai, told Bloomberg. "As part of this effort, we're conducting thorough market research to identify US-based manufacturers that offer both competitive pricing and high quality, while closely monitoring the evolving tariff situation." Hyundai may have a difficult time finding American manufacturers that can build and supply nuclear power plant components quicker and cheaper than the international market. Like nearly every other sector of the economy, the supply chain for nuclear is globalized and relies on trade. Because the U.S. has little mining and refining and imported uranium is cheaper and more abundant, American nuclear power plants get their fuel from Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia. Nuclear-grade steel is sourced from abroad, especially from Japan and South Korea. The modules used to house the reactors of Vogtle 3 and 4—the most recent nuclear power plants to come online in the U.S.—are 1,000 tons and made entirely of stainless steel fabricated by Doosan Heavy Industries in South Korea. While the reactors being built at Palisades are smaller than Vogtle's, the 10 percent global tariffs and 25 percent tax on steel and aluminum are forcing Hyundai to consider less-experienced American manufacturers to avoid paying an additional importer fee. Once the project is done, Holtec can look forward to paying a 10 percent tax to import fuel from Canada, the second largest producer and exporter of uranium in the world (behind Kazakhstan) and the single largest supplier of uranium to the United States. For now, Hyundai is expecting the project's cost to rise. "Tariffs will have an influence on the total price," Ahn told Bloomberg. Whatever the exact impact of the president's trade policies on the project are, higher prices will likely be paid for by local ratepayers, Michigan residents, and taxpayers nationwide. The post Trump's Tariffs Are Threatening a $3 Billion Nuclear Power Plant Restart in Michigan appeared first on
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What Was Learned from Building New Nuclear Reactors?
Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle 3 and 4 are the only new reactors that have been built in the U.S. in over 30 years. At the start, Georgia Power executives claimed that, unlike the first two reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4 would be completed on time and on budget. At completion, however, both the final cost of $36 billion and 15-year schedule were more than double original estimates. As a nuclear professional with decades of construction and operations experience, I was the lead construction monitor for Georgia's Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, and reported to the Georgia Public Service Commission. Also, I led a consultant study for a less developed country in its consideration of having nuclear as part of its future power generation. Having closely watched and documented the enormous cost and schedule overruns that took place in Plant Vogtle, I urge others to understand that the following issues that plagued Vogtle, and adversely impacted Georgia rate payers, could just as likely be repeated elsewhere. COMMENTARY High Capital and Operating Costs of Nuclear. Due to the necessary nuclear safety requirements, the inherent design of current generation nuclear plants makes them very expensive. The recently completed Vogtle reactors exceeded $35 billion for construction and financing. This excessive cost was due in large part to the inherent design, plus an inability to control the environment required to control costs, and with these changes an inability to more properly manage completion of the project. In addition, large numbers of staff are required to protect and operate a nuclear plant, so the operating costs are also significant. Comparing Generation Types. In the case of Vogtle 3 and 4, these two reactors provide roughly 2,200 MW of electricity. Georgia Power's 45.7% share of the output deliver 1,020 MW of new capacity at a cost of $11 billion, a far greater cost than what was expected, and resulted in a 25% rate increase on Georgia Power's residential bills. Highly reliable (and more responsive to load changes) combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants with a 1,020 MW capacity would have cost only about $1 billion and require far few operating staff. While nuclear reactors have no carbon emissions, CCGTs have roughly half the carbon emissions as a coal plant. Renewables, such as utility-scale solar and wind (when available and in demand) are even less expensive and have zero carbon emissions. However, their inherent characteristics are such that the exact path forward as to how to most economically and effectively integrate them into the grid is still evolving, as are other, more longer-term yet unproven energy alternatives. Repeating Nuclear Plant History. The necessary assumptions for reducing nuclear capital costs include multiple plant orders (to spread the common costs among multiple plants), a factory like production line building of common modules to better assure quality and reduce costs, and the availability of nuclear construction labor and expertise. These assumptions are not new, but in the past always changed. For example, in 1969, Westinghouse and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. formed a joint venture to produce floating nuclear plants. However, roughly 10 years later, with decreased future demand forecasts and after the Three Mile Island accident, that effort was terminated. These same original assumptions were made at the start of Vogtle Units 3 and 4. This time, with reduced natural gas prices and decreased future demand forecasts, of the originally intended 14 AP1000 reactors, only Vogtle was pursued to completion. When the pipeline of nuclear reactor orders dried up, it resulted in cancellation of the modular facility and high costs drove the construction contractor, Westinghouse, into bankruptcy. Those factors, coupled with limited nuclear construction labor and expertise, meant that Vogtle's construction costs exceeded even the worst projections. Also, even if one could better control the environment within which the plants are to be constructed, given the high cost of the inherent design, it is questionable as to what percentage cost reduction would be achievable and whether that would be sufficient to make nuclear cost competitive with other energy generation choices. In going forward with nuclear, there is increased emphasis on building smaller plants, again having multiple orders and a factory like facility for manufacturing modules to support the multiple orders. However, lessons learned from the past would show that economies of scale from larger plants could be lost. This was the case when Westinghouse had previously cancelled the smaller AP600 plant in favor of the larger AP1000 design. These same economies of scale would most likely be lost not only with respect to construction costs, but also with respect to operations costs. This is due largely to the required large staff to protect and operate a nuclear plant. More than 15 years after the Plant Vogtle expansion project first was licensed, the enormous cost overruns, the prolonged construction timeline, and the significant burden on ratepayers in Georgia reveal that nuclear reactor technologies cannot be relied on as a cost-effective solution to our growing energy needs, as the evidence points to more affordable, faster, and readily available near-term alternatives. —Don Grace, PE has more than 50 years of experience in nuclear and fossil fuel plants. He served as the Plant Vogtle Construction Monitor from 2017 to 2024, providing oversight and testifying semi-annually before the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
3 Reasons to Buy NuScale Power Stock Like There's No Tomorrow
NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR) is not an investment for the faint of heart. Indeed, it is losing money today and will probably continue to do so for at least another few years. But if you can handle a little risk, this nuclear power start-up is extremely attractive. Here are three of the primary reasons why more aggressive investors might not want to wait until some future tomorrow to jump aboard NuScale Power. Building a traditional nuclear power plant is complex, time-consuming, and very expensive. The last two plants to come online in the U.S., Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia, were a huge drag on Southern Company's business while they were being built. The biggest problem, however, was that the plants took longer to build than expected and cost more than planned. These were not small issues, with the plants nearly a decade behind schedule and costing about twice as much to build as projected. NuScale's business model is different. It plans to build small, modular nuclear power reactors in a factory. There are a number of benefits to this approach. The factory environment allows for better control of the construction process. It will also allow for efficiencies, since building techniques will be standardized and equipment will be used to build more than one nuclear reactor. A standardized supply chain should also make access to key parts easier. Construction times should also compress materially, allowing NuScale to supply customers quickly and cost effectively. In addition, NuScale has designed its plants with the ability to link them together. This means multiple small modules could be chained to create one large power plant to provide electricity to the grid. Or a single small nuclear reactor could be placed next to a data center to supply just that data center. There is a huge amount of optionality when it comes to NuScale's proposed offering. And because they are smaller and built on the learnings from history, small modular nuclear reactors have enhanced safety protocols that should make them relatively low risk. All in, NuScale Power's fundamental story is very attractive. One subtle difference between NuScale and some of its peers is that NuScale's technology isn't really new. It is built off of currently available technology. Some companies in the small modular reactor space are trying to generate electricity from fuels that simply don't exist, so they lack a reliable supply chain. This newer technology may be amazing when it comes out, but it is nowhere near ready for prime time. Don't underestimate the importance of this. NuScale Power's goal is to deliver its first small-scale modular nuclear reactor by the end of the decade. While that's still four years or so away, newer technology could be a decade or longer away. And scale production could be further out still, given that entire supply chains would have to be created from scratch. You can argue that NuScale Power's product is just iterative. That's true in some ways. But the use of existing technology to improve the nuclear power options available to the world could literally change the dynamics in the nuclear power industry. That's especially true if the safety of small-scale nuclear reactors lives up to expectations, given the massive headline risk posed by nuclear meltdowns at large nuclear power plants. There are other companies trying to do the exact same thing NuScale Power is doing: taking existing technology and scaling it down. However, NuScale Power says it is "the first and only small modular reactor technology to receive NRC design approval and certification." No other company has submitted for similar approval, and getting approval is a years-long process. Simply put, NuScale has a huge head start that could leave it with an important first-mover advantage. But the massive event that investors should monitor in 2025 is the final approval for a nuclear power plant in Romania, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter. If this project gets approved, it will be the first commercial customer for NuScale Power, stringing together six of its small modular nuclear reactors to create a larger power plant. So not only is NuScale Power theoretically ahead of its peers, it could effectively start commercial operations by the end of the year. Notably, it is already starting to build key components in preparation for the approval of the Romanian nuclear power plant. Thus, it will hit the ground running if it does get the green light. Most investors probably shouldn't buy NuScale Power. It is a small start-up that is losing money. However, if you don't mind taking on some risk, the dominos appear to be lining up nicely for NuScale Power. It has attractive technology at a time when more power is increasingly in demand. What it is offering is new, but based on technology that is well known and understood. And it has a head start on all the competition that is looking to do the same thing. If you believe that being the first mover is important, then NuScale Power might be the kind of stock you want to load up on now, as it nears an important business inflection point. Before you buy stock in NuScale Power, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and NuScale Power wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $726,481!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 835% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 164% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of March 18, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Southern Company. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Reasons to Buy NuScale Power Stock Like There's No Tomorrow was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
