SC nuclear project comes in $550 million under budget

[wtmusic]

"JENKINSVILLE, S.C. -- The construction of two new nuclear plants in Fairfield County has been delayed, but the overall cost remains below initial estimates, officials with South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. said Wednesday.

SCE&G is building two new reactors at its V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, about 30 miles northwest of Columbia, where one reactor has operated for 30 years. The new reactors are jointly owned and funded with state-owned utility Santee Cooper. Members of the media were allowed on-site Wednesday for an update and tour, 17 months after federal regulators approved licenses to build and operate them.

The first is now scheduled to open at the end of 2017 or early 2018, rather than March 2017, said Steve Byrne, SCE&G's chief operating officer and president of generation and transmission. That date still falls within an 18-month contingency that the utility is allowed, he said."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/07/3547506/sceg-showing-off-nuclear-plant.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. The article says customers have been paying for them since 2007 but they're not opening til 2017.

Nice deal for the utility company.

[wtmusic]

2. Actually it saves consumers $4 billion

since consumers get the bill anyway.

"SCE&G and state-owned utility Santee Cooper are building two nuclear electric-generating units at the site of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, S.C. The most current publicly available estimated total construction cost and construction schedule are available in the Q1 BLRA filing on the SCANA investor relations' website at www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/.

Paying financing costs while construction is ongoing, as opposed to waiting until the project has been completed, lowers the cost of building the new units by about $1 billion, which in turn reduces the amount customers will pay through rates for related costs such as the cost of capital, depreciation, property taxes and insurance associated with the project. SCE&G estimates this will save its customers approximately $4 billion in electric rates over the life of the new units."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sce-g-files-rate-adjustment-220400402.html

[OnlinePoker]

3. Look at Hydro One in Ontario

When the province forced the amalgamation of utilities in 1999, it had total debt and liabilities of $38 Billion with actual debt being $30 Billion of that. The province authorized a debt repayment fee on everybody's bill. In 2011, after 12 years of paying, total debt and liabilities was down to $29 Billion, but actual debt still came in at $27 Billion. Pay as you build is the only way to go. It saves the ratepayers in the long run because you aren't having to repay interest on loans to fund the project.

[kristopher]

4. Its a corporate scam to transfer risk to the public

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)

If the corporations had to accept the risk involved in building nuclear projects you can be sure they wouldn't happen. Florida ratepayers just found out they are on the hook for $3B given for 2 nuclear plants; 1 that will never be repaired as promised and one that will never be built.

That's 3 Billion (with a 'B') dollars.

Last time the nuclear bandwagon rolled around 30+ years ago they left ratepayers holding the bag for about 20 Billion (with a 'B') dollars of that era. Many are still paying for it.

Saves the ratepayers money my ass. ETA: Even the OP is a scam. "SC nuclear project comes in $550 million under budget" is the claim and yet the plant is already behind schedule and wont be complete for at least 4 more years. To say that this "SC nuclear project comes in $550 million under budget" is to claim that the project was completed with the stated savings. It's like saying horse #3 "comes in" first as it is running last 50 feet out of the gate.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. “… delayed, but the overall cost remains below initial estimates …”

This doesn’t seem to be consistent with the headline, “nuclear project comes in $550 million under budget”

(It hasn’t “come in” yet…)

…

SCE&G estimates that the delay added $200 million to the project's cost. Who will pay for that is not yet determined, Byrne said.

…

Nuclear power opponent Tom Clements said he expects further delays that will substantially delay the project and increase costs.

…

[wtmusic]

6. Isn't it wonderful?

With cheap, plentiful nuclear we wouldn't have to rely on trying to hide CO2 in caves, or under pillows, or other such fanciful schemes which don't have a snowball's chance in hell of paying off. Even in 900 years.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. If only there were such a thing…

…as cheap plentiful nuclear power.

From the World Nuclear Association:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]The Economics of Nuclear Power[/font]

(Updated July 2013)

[font size=3]

• Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
• Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
• In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

Assessing the relative costs of new generating plants utilising different technologies is a complex matter and the results depend crucially on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are included in the operating costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

…[/font][/font]

Translation: (according to the nuclear industry) nuclear power is more expensive than fossil fueled electricity.

Renewables, like solar and wind, have become competitive with fossil fuels. (In some cases, like nuclear, they are less expensive than fossil fueled electricity.)

[FBaggins]

8. Two corrections

First of all, "came in" does not imply that the project is done. They have to make periodic reports on the status of the project... it "came in" just as reported.

Second - "solar and wind, have become competitive with fossil fuels" is simply not true. Take kristopher's thread from this afternoon. It reports that the US installed 13.1 GW of wind capacity last year at a cost of $25Billion. That's about $2 Billion per GW of capacity. GWs that produce roughly a third as much power as a nuclear GW... and which need to be replaced 20-25 years later while the nuclear plant is still young.

Solar was worse. I'm going from memory, but it was about 3.5 GWs for about $12 Billion. Still quite a bit more expensive than the wind power and nowhere near the price of nuclear (let alone gas/coal).

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. I believe "comes in" implies reaching a goal

If someone was walking down the front walk, would you say they have "come in" to your home? (Not yet, they haven't.) You might say they have "come in" to view.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/come+in

What would it mean to you if someone said that their horse came in first? (Would that mean the horse was in the lead in the home stretch? or that the horse crossed the finish line first?)


"Competitive" is a weasle word used in the pro-nuclear page I cited. It's often used by renewable energy advocates as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/solar-energy-costs-may-already-rival-coal-spurring-installation-boom.html

[FBaggins]

10. That's fine... but our beliefs don't impact reality.

Reports "come in" all the time. Companies "come in under budget" (or over) all the time. The project just had to report where the current cost for the project (and projection through completion) stands relative to plan. It "came in" below the initial budget for the project.

In this case, I think it's a slightly higher expense offset by the lower than expected financing costs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Seriously?

A report that "comes in"... is it almost finished?

A company that "comes in under budget" does that mean they are part way through the budget year?

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/come-in

[FBaggins]

12. Do you think that someone is trying...

...to fool you into thinking the plant is done?

It's clear what the report is saying. The plant is close to being on time and is under budget. That's what "came in".

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Frankly, I believe wtmusic’s headline was deceptive

The phrase “comes in” does not appear in the actual story at any point, nor does any similar phrase.

[madokie]

14. So in other words you're saying it's ok to leave nuclear waste scattered about the country

Because that is what's happening.
After all these years there still is no viable plan for what to do with that very dangerous waste. Shut the sob's down and do it now

How is nuclear energy cheap?
How is nuclear energy safe?
How is nuclear energy clean?
When you have a Fuchishima that no one has any idea what to do with. It matters not how that happened, it matters that it did and is still very dangerous and will be for a long time yet.
Still have the exclusion zone in the Ukraine from Chernobyl

[4dsc]

15. This is still a $10B project.

Don't count your chickens too soon as there is still plenty of time for the cost to rise over the life of this project.