Nuclear power success in Georgia

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Last year, the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia produced 19.8 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity. Also in Georgia, the slightly smaller Hatch plant produced 14 million MWh. Together, the four nuclear power reactors in Georgia produced nearly 34 million MWh of clean, inexpensive and reliable electricity. Nuclear power generates about 27% of the state’s electricity. This is a higher percentage than the overall US, which is about 19% for nuclear.

Vogtle yearly production:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/649?fre…

Hatch yearly:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/6051?fr…

It gets even better. The newest nuclear plants at Vogtle are nearing completion of their construction phase. Unit 3 is essentially complete, working off the final outstanding items, with the uranium fuel scheduled to be loaded into the reactor in October or November. Unit 4 is currently about 95% complete, and will begin operational testing next year. When Units 3 and 4 are fully in service, they will add to the state’s clean electricity portfolio, and should produce another 18 million MWh per year of inexpensive energy.

Vogtle 3 and 4 latest status report:
https://s27.q4cdn.com/273397814/files/doc_financials/2022/q2…

Georgia’s average price of residential electricity is 12.77 cents per kwh. This is lower than the US average of 14.29 cents per kwh. The state’s nuclear power plants help to keep the price of electricity low. Last year, the capacity factor (CF) for the four plants currently in service in Georgia was 95%. This is slightly better than the US average for nuclear, which is 92%. Nuclear power consistently has high capacity factors. The CF for wind is around 35% in the US, while solar is maybe 25%.

May 2022 price of electricity, by state:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph…

Capacity Factors, non-fossil sources of power:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph…

At 12.77 cents per kwh for residential electricity, Georgians pay much less than some other states, such as California. California has gone heavily into unreliable and expensive renewable sources of power. As a result, the average residential price in California is over 25 cents per kwh! During certain times of the day, my local utility here in San Diego charges me over 58 cents/kwh. In the last 10 years, the price of electricity in California has increased three times faster than the US average. Hawaii, which is also going big into renewables, is also seeing skyrocketing prices per kwh. Since the high power demand part of the day is often after the sun goes down, solar power doesn’t produce when the power is needed the most. Nuclear power doesn’t have these issues.

A similar effect on the cost of energy can be seen in Europe. Germany and Denmark have built up large amounts of intermittent renewable electricity. The Germans and Danes now pay the highest electric power rates in Europe.

  • Pete
16 Likes
2

…Georgia produced nearly 34 million MWh of clean, inexpensive and reliable electricity…

I’ve held Southern Company basically since my uncle gave me a couple shares as a graduation gift almost 40 years ago. Inexpensive maybe in electricity generation but the building of those nuclear plants blew past any budget projections many years ago.

Nuclear is the way to go though.

JLC

4 Likes
3

I’ve held Southern Company basically since my uncle gave me a couple shares as a graduation gift almost 40 years ago. Inexpensive maybe in electricity generation but the building of those nuclear plants blew past any budget projections many years ago.

Nuclear is the way to go though.

I’m skeptical about the inexpensive part as well. New nuclear is eligible for federal loan guarantees which lower financing costs plus it gets the same producer tax credit as renewables. Yet there is no new large nuclear planned in the US. And several existing plants have been receiving rate payer subsides for years. The recent infrastructure bill also contained subsidies for existing plants:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is launching a $6 billion effort to rescue nuclear power plants at risk of closing, citing the need to continue nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of power that helps to combat climate change.

A certification and bidding process opened Tuesday for a civil nuclear credit program that is intended to bail out financially distressed owners or operators of nuclear power reactors, the U.S. Department of Energy told The Associated Press exclusively, shortly before the official announcement. It’s the largest federal investment in saving financially distressed nuclear reactors.

https://apnews.com/article/climate-business-environment-nucl…

There are good reason to keep operating these plants, but saving money is not one of them.

4 Likes
4

Inexpensive maybe in electricity generation but the building of those nuclear plants blew past any budget projections many years ago.

To use an analogy, most people don’t pay for their houses all at once. People take out mortgages, to be paid off over 30 years or whatever. Similarly, the cost of large capital projects such as nuclear power plants can be amortized over many years, paid out through corporate bonds or whatever funding mechanism a company uses. I believe Georgia Power (subsidiary of Southern Co.) is currently charging customers for the costs of building Vogtle 3 and 4. However, as I note in the original post, Georgians still have lower priced electricity compared to the US average. The residential price per kwh has increased in Georgia at about the same rate as the US overall.

Yes, construction costs for Vogtle 3 and 4 were higher than originally planned. That is what happens for First-of-a-Kind projects. In this case, maybe we can also describe them as First-in-a-Long-Time projects. We haven’t built nuclear power plants in the US in a long time, and the experiences need to be re-learned.

One way to get the price of nuclear power construction down is to start building more of them, so the lessons learned of building the first ones can be applied to subsequent projects. Perhaps another way is to start building Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in a factory environment. Boeing doesn’t build just one or two 777s or 787s. Boeing plans on building thousands on an assembly line. Cost per plane is much less than if just a few are ordered.

  • Pete
11 Likes
5

Germany and Denmark have built up large amounts of intermittent renewable electricity. The Germans and Danes now pay the highest electric power rates in Europe.

  • Pete

==========================================

That was true in 2021. Currently France is paying more for electricity than Germany and Denmark. France is even resorted to importing electricity.

Jaak

6

Nuclear is the way to go though.

JLC

===============================================

Wait until Vogtle 3&4 start operating. Then the Georgia public utilities commision will have to give Georgia Power the rate hikes they need to payoff the huge cost of building the plants. Georgia will then have electrical rates like California.

Jaak

7

waterfell writes:
When Units 3 and 4 are fully in service, they will add to the state’s clean electricity portfolio, and should produce another 18 million MWh per year of inexpensive energy.

===================================================================

You must be under some delusion. You can not build a power plant for over $30 billion and then claim inexpensive electricity. That is pure BS. The cost of the power plant needs to be paid with ratepayers money for the next 40 to 60 years.

The US government is not giving $12 billion to Georgia Power for making all the stupid mistakes, shoddy work, rework, delays, labor mismanagement and all around incompetence.

Jaak

2 Likes
8

This thread is making me even more pro-nuclear, but I’m also thinking we need to re-think this model of “large power plants in the boonies and large networks of high voltage wires”. Smaller power plants, more of them, closer to the population centers. I think Bill Gates was working on a new nuclear design (rather, he was funding it) pre-pandemic. Problem was the Chinese were the only ones willing to help develop and test it. We were not. Shame.

3 Likes
9

I think Bill Gates was working on a new nuclear design (rather, he was funding it) pre-pandemic.

Bill Gates’ nuclear power company is called TerraPower. They recently announced plans for building a demonstration sodium-cooled fast reactor plant in a coal town in Wyoming.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds…

* Bill Gates’ TerraPower has chosen Kemmerer, Wyoming, a frontier-era coal town, as the site where the company will build its first demonstration nuclear power plant.
* The plant will cost about $4 billion, half coming from TerraPower and half coming from the United States government, the company said.
* Rocky Mountain Power — a division of PacifiCorp, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy — will operate the plant, which will play a role in the power company’s decarbonization strategy

About the Natrium reactor design, if you are interested:
https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/

GE-Hitachi is also involved in the project, to bring in some established nuclear power resources. They still have a long way to go on this. The Natrium design is not yet approved in the US, and would be the first commercial sodium cooled reactor in a long time in the US. Russia currently operates a sodium-cooled plant, and there have been a few others in France and Japan, but I believe those have been shut down. Sodium cooling has certain advantages, but also brings in other problems that water cooled plants don’t have. Sodium metal reacts rather violently with water, so those sort of interactions need to be avoided.

  • Pete
5 Likes
10

This thread is making me even more pro-nuclear, but I’m also thinking we need to re-think this model of “large power plants in the boonies and large networks of high voltage wires”. Smaller power plants, more of them, closer to the population centers. I think Bill Gates was working on a new nuclear design (rather, he was funding it) pre-pandemic. Problem was the Chinese were the only ones willing to help develop and test it. We were not. Shame.

The thing is, a big nuclear reactor costs about the same as a medium one. So you might as build a big one. If you can co-locate a few of them on the same site you can save money that way to. But the fat lady has sung. Vogtle 3&4 has been such a titanic financial disaster it has completely destroyed any hope for new large nuclear in the U.S.

But as you say, small modular reactors have some promise and the government is funding some development

https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-sm…

Bill Gates’ project was stalled by U.S. sanctions on China, but is underway again will now be built in Wyoming. Other companies are building prototypes as well. But before anyone gets their hopes up, it will probably be decade before the prototypes are online, and probably another decade before they are ready for commercial adoption.

1 Like
11

I’m also thinking we need to re-think this model of “large power plants in the boonies and large networks of high voltage wires”. Smaller power plants, more of them, closer to the population centers.

In northern Illinois, Commonwealth Edison built a large fleet of reactors all sited in the boonies on purpose. The local politics were easier to deal with, and the siting decreased the potential population dose in case of a leak.

DB2

1 Like
12

This thread is making me even more pro-nuclear, but I’m also thinking we need to re-think this model of “large power plants in the boonies and large networks of high voltage wires”. Smaller power plants, more of them, closer to the population centers. I think Bill Gates was working on a new nuclear design (rather, he was funding it) pre-pandemic. Problem was the Chinese were the only ones willing to help develop and test it. We were not. Shame.

Actually, there are quite a few Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the works. NuScale in Oregon is almost at the finish line, currently waiting on regulatory approval for their design.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-…

A list of current SMR development projects and their status in this very large pdf:
https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_Book_2020.pdf

1 Like
13

This thread is making me even more pro-nuclear, but I’m also thinking we need to re-think this model of “large power plants in the boonies and large networks of high voltage wires”.

===============================================

You are being lied to by the nuclear power salesman. He uses smoke and mirrors to make it seem like Vogtle 3&4 will provide cheap electricity. He tells you that Vogtle 1&2 nuclear plants are generating cheap electricity. But he does not tell you that they were built a long time ago (starting in 1976 and finished in 1989) for half the cost of Vogtle 3&4. The construction cost of Vogtle 1&2 have been paid off in the 33 years of operation by the rate payers. Therefore, these with plants are now generating electricity more cheaply with no loan payments.

Now he tells you that Vogtle 3&4 will also generate cheap electricity. But that is not true - there is a very large construction debt to be paid by the ratepayers for the next 40 years.

Anyone with an ounce of economics knowledge understands the above.

Anyone with an ounce of energy economics knows that new nuclear power plants like Vogtle 3&4 are not cheap and will not generate cheap electricity. That is why utilities for the last 10 years have invested in the more economical power generation technologies like natural gas and renewable power plants. Many nuclear power plant plans were cancelled in the last 10 years. Plans for new coal fired power plants were also cancelled.

The R&D worked being done on small modular reactor (SMR) designs is geared to eliminate the high cost of building the large Vogtle 3&4 reactor plants. However, there are no prototype SMR plants completed for testing and design confirmation. SMR are still 10 years away from commercialization if they prove to be economical to build and operate and cheaper than natural gas and renewable power plants.

Climate change can not afford the cost and time that large nuclear plants take before they generate any electricity. Vogtle 3&4 cost and schedule would have resulted in 10 times more renewable power plants in half the time.

Jaak

P.S. - Please read what several Georgia Representatives have proposed as House Resolution 1169 to protect Georgia ratepayers from the Vogtle 3 & 4 construction disaster in the following link:

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/2…

4 Likes
14

I’m skeptical about the inexpensive part as well. New nuclear is eligible for federal loan guarantees which lower financing costs plus it gets the same producer tax credit as renewables. Yet there is no new large nuclear planned in the US. And several existing plants have been receiving rate payer subsides for years. The recent infrastructure bill also contained subsidies for existing plants

There are good reason to keep operating these plants, but saving money is not one of them.

========================================================

The title of this thread is a lie. The title should be “Nat gas & renewable power success in Georgia”

The electrical generation in Georgia in 2020 by fuel source was:

Nat gas: 49.1%
Nuclear: 27.6%
Coal: 11.7%
Hydro: 3.1%
Petro: 0.2%
Wind/solar: 8.3

According to NEI: https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g…

Nat gas & renewables generated a total of 49.1% + 11.4% = 60.5% of the total. Therefore, claiming nuclear as the success story is a lie.

Jaak

15

Whether we call it a lie, false information, misinformation, or just plain NO Nothing at all on the topic…we are here for accurate information. Accurate data.

When people are wrong admitting it is the better path to take. Constantly going on about it when wrong? What are we doing here? Just spreading whatever manure we like?

I think all of us, I mean this, all of us are better than that.

If you are wrong just say so.

Nuclear energy is way over priced. It will never save us money. It will always make the US less competitive globally.

If you see I am wrong in that statement please correct me. If you have been saying the opposite and I am totally correct stop making mistakes when you know you are wrong.

I do not care who butters your bread.

4 Likes
16

My first mistake in that post NO Nothing…Know Nothing…my mind strays between thoughts as I type.

17

Vogtle construction costs:

Units 1–2: $8.87 billion In 1989 dollars or $16.4 billion in 2020 dollars

Units 3&4: $30.4 billion currently (will cost >$32 billion when 100% finished)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla…

Georgia Power and its partners have already collected from the ratepayers close to one billion dollars for the construction costs.

Here is how the cost of the construction must be paid:

If Georgia Power & Southern Company issue bonds at 3% interest on $30 billion for 40 years, then they will be paying bond holders about $1.3 billion dollars per year in interest.

If Georgia Power & Southern Company absorbs $5 billion (due to errors and mismanagement) and issue bonds at 3% interest on $25 billion for 40 years, then they will be paying bond holders about $1.0 billion dollars per year in interest.

Of course Georgia Power & Southern Company will ask the Georgia PSC to increase electricity rates to pay for the construction costs these.

Therefore, in reality the ratepayers will be the ones paying the interest on these bonds - Georgia Power & Southern Company will just be the middle men.

Jaak

1 Like
18

Purely from a business, finance and economic point of view for the middleman or the consumer or the manufacturer nuclear power is an inflationary source of energy.

Getting electricity from nuclear power is to our disadvantage.

If you can correct those statements please do. If not stop spreading nonsense to the contrary.

19

Nuclear energy is way over priced. It will never save us money. It will always make the US less competitive globally.

=====================================================

Thanks for the post. I totally agree with you for the large nuclear plants (>1000 MW) that are being built in US and Europe. They are all way over budget and behind schedule.

I will wait and see if they can engineer some of the SMRs to be cost competitive with natural gas and renewables. It will be very difficult or impossible to totally build these SMRs in a factory. But I am willing to wait 5 years to find out before I die.

I am totally shocked by the ignorance of power plants economics on this board. Most people would try to learn, but lying and telling half truths to people on this board about the economics of power plants is disgusting to me. Of course biased organizations like the American Nuclear Society (ANS), World Nuclear News (WNN) and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) will never provide a credible assessment of nuclear power economics compared to natural gas and renewables.

Jaak

20

hi waterfell

Are you able to rebut any of the comments in this thread saying that your statements about cost like this one
“When Units 3 and 4 are fully in service, they will add to the state’s clean electricity portfolio, and should produce another 18 million MWh per year of inexpensive energy.”
are just wrong?

My understanding is that Georgia’s Vogtle 3 & 4 plants are cost nightmares. And if I do a quick search on current costs, I find that nuclear is among the most expensive energy sources (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p…).

What numbers can you provide that show that these new plants will produce inexpensive power in the years ahead?

2 Likes