Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumProgress Energy's proposed nuclear plant called 'poster child' for failure
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energys-proposed-nuclear-plant-called-poster-child-for-failure/1225849
Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant called 'poster child' for failure
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Friday, April 20, 2012
Authors of a new report on the future of U.S. electricity generation highlight Progress Energy's Levy County nuclear plant as "the poster child" of failing, expensive power projects.
In a conference call Thursday to discuss the 60-page report, the authors called the Levy facility's $22 billion price tag "unprecedented" for a nuclear plant, and the $1 billion Progress customers are paying for a plant that might never get built a "sad experience" in power plant financing.
"It is, again, the poster child for what can happen if you don't do it right on the front end," said Ron Binz, co-author of Practicing Risk-Aware Electricity Regulation: What Every State Regulator Needs to Know and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
<snip>
Progress Energy Florida started a project to increase the generating capacity of its existing nuclear plant in Crystal River, but customers have not been able to benefit because the utility cracked the 42-inch-thick concrete containment building during a replacement of old steam generators in 2009. The plant has been out of service since, and it remains unclear when it will come back into service, if at all.
<snip>
Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant called 'poster child' for failure
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Friday, April 20, 2012
Authors of a new report on the future of U.S. electricity generation highlight Progress Energy's Levy County nuclear plant as "the poster child" of failing, expensive power projects.
In a conference call Thursday to discuss the 60-page report, the authors called the Levy facility's $22 billion price tag "unprecedented" for a nuclear plant, and the $1 billion Progress customers are paying for a plant that might never get built a "sad experience" in power plant financing.
"It is, again, the poster child for what can happen if you don't do it right on the front end," said Ron Binz, co-author of Practicing Risk-Aware Electricity Regulation: What Every State Regulator Needs to Know and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
<snip>
Progress Energy Florida started a project to increase the generating capacity of its existing nuclear plant in Crystal River, but customers have not been able to benefit because the utility cracked the 42-inch-thick concrete containment building during a replacement of old steam generators in 2009. The plant has been out of service since, and it remains unclear when it will come back into service, if at all.
<snip>
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 672 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant called 'poster child' for failure (Original Post)
bananas
Apr 2012
OP
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1. Here is the link to the study - its target audience is utility regulators
This effort by Progress is a textbook example of nuclear industry indifference to the actual needs of those paying the bills.
The beginning of the executive summary.
CONTEXT: INCREASING CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY U.S. ELECTRIC UTILITIES AMID HISTORIC UNCERTAINTY AND RISK
The U.S. electric utility industry, which has remained largely stable and predictable during its first century of existence, now faces tremendous challenges. Navigant Consulting recently observed that the changes underway in the 21st century electric power sector create a level and complexity of risks that is perhaps unprecedented in the industrys history.1 These challenges include:
- an aging generation fleet and distribution system, and a need to expand transmission;
- increasingly stringent environmental regulation limiting pollutants and greenhouse gases;2
- disruptive changes in the economics of coal and natural gas;
- rapidly evolving smart grid technologies enabling greater
customer control and choice;
- increased policy maker emphasis on demand-side resources requiring new regulatory approaches and utility business models;
- competition from growth in distributed generation;
- slow demand growth due to protracted economic
recovery and high unemployment;
- substantially weakened industry financial metrics and credit ratings, with over three-quarters of companies in the sector rated three notches or less above junk bond status.3
Many of these same factors are driving historic levels of utility investment. It is estimated that the U.S. electricity industry could invest as much as $100 billion each year for 20 yearsroughly twice recent investment levels. This level of investment will double the net invested capital in the U.S. electricity system by 2030. Moreover, these infrastructure investments are long lived: generation, transmission and distribution assets can have expected useful lives of 30 or 40 years or longer. This means that many of these assets will likely still be operating in 2050, when electric power producers may be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts from climate change.
The U.S. electric utility industry, which has remained largely stable and predictable during its first century of existence, now faces tremendous challenges. Navigant Consulting recently observed that the changes underway in the 21st century electric power sector create a level and complexity of risks that is perhaps unprecedented in the industrys history.1 These challenges include:
- an aging generation fleet and distribution system, and a need to expand transmission;
- increasingly stringent environmental regulation limiting pollutants and greenhouse gases;2
- disruptive changes in the economics of coal and natural gas;
- rapidly evolving smart grid technologies enabling greater
customer control and choice;
- increased policy maker emphasis on demand-side resources requiring new regulatory approaches and utility business models;
- competition from growth in distributed generation;
- slow demand growth due to protracted economic
recovery and high unemployment;
- substantially weakened industry financial metrics and credit ratings, with over three-quarters of companies in the sector rated three notches or less above junk bond status.3
Many of these same factors are driving historic levels of utility investment. It is estimated that the U.S. electricity industry could invest as much as $100 billion each year for 20 yearsroughly twice recent investment levels. This level of investment will double the net invested capital in the U.S. electricity system by 2030. Moreover, these infrastructure investments are long lived: generation, transmission and distribution assets can have expected useful lives of 30 or 40 years or longer. This means that many of these assets will likely still be operating in 2050, when electric power producers may be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts from climate change.
*Risk is the expected value of a potential loss. Higher risk for a resource or portfolio means that more value is at stake or that the likelihood of a financial loss is greater, or both.
http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/practicing-risk-aware-electricity-regulation