Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

First US Nuclear Reactor Built In Decades Enters Commercial Operation (nbcnews.com) 254

ZipNada writes: A new reactor at a nuclear power plant in Georgia has entered commercial operation, becoming the first new American reactor built from scratch in decades. Georgia Power announced Monday that Unit 3 at Plant Vogtle, southeast of Augusta, has completed testing and is now sending power to the grid reliably. At its full output of 1,100 megawatts of electricity, Unit 3 can power 500,000 homes and businesses. Utilities in Georgia, Florida and Alabama are receiving the electricity.

Nuclear power now makes up about 25% of the generation of Georgia Power, the largest unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. A fourth reactor is also nearing completion at the site, where two earlier reactors have been generating electricity for decades. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday said radioactive fuel could be loaded into Unit 4, a step expected to take place before the end of September. Unit 4 is scheduled to enter commercial operation by March. The third and fourth reactors were originally supposed to cost $14 billion, but are now on track to cost their owners $31 billion. That doesn't include $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid to the owners to walk away from the project. That brings total spending to almost $35 billion. The third reactor was supposed to start generating power in 2016 when construction began in 2009.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First US Nuclear Reactor Built In Decades Enters Commercial Operation

Comments Filter:
  • Sooo (Score:2, Informative)

    by gweihir ( 88907 )

    $31B instead of $14B and 8 years late. For a technology that is supposedly mature. How pathetic.

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      Don't worry, the utility will make a big profit on this. The ratepayers will be stuck paying high electricity prices for decades.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. "Cheap energy", my ass.

      • by poptix ( 78287 )

        Rates in Georgia are actually pretty low, and they offer multiple plans:

        Standard residential is 6.1805 cents per kWh for the first 650 kWh (1)

        Alternatively, they offer demand based metering which costs 10.1909 cents per kWh for on peak, but only 1.0895 cents per kWh off-peak. Amazing pricing if you have a battery system.

        (1) https://www.georgiapower.com/c... [georgiapower.com]
        (2) https://www.georgiapower.com/c... [georgiapower.com]

        • Re:Sooo (Score:5, Informative)

          by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:59PM (#63729322) Homepage

          Rates in Georgia are actually pretty low, and they offer multiple plans:

          Looking at the AP article [apnews.com], those prices are going up to pay for the new power plant:

          "In Georgia, almost every electric customer will pay for Vogtle. ... Georgia Power’s residential customers are projected to pay more than $926 apiece as part of an ongoing finance charge and elected public service commissioners have approved a rate increase. Residential customers will pay $4 more per month as soon as the third unit begins generating power. That could hit bills in August, two months after residential customers saw a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs."

          • by shmlco ( 594907 )

            "That could hit bills in August, two months after residential customers saw a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs"

            Does that "higher fuel costs" part translate into coal and gas costing more money?

            • by clovis ( 4684 )

              "That could hit bills in August, two months after residential customers saw a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs"

              Does that "higher fuel costs" part translate into coal and gas costing more money?

              Yes, gas and coal in this case. In Georgia the utilities break out fuel cost recovery as a separate line item in your bill. The regulatory agency, PSC, approves the amount after Ga Power makes a rate request.
              In the two years up to 2022, rising fuel costs left Ga Power 4.5 billion dollars in the hole, so the PSC approved a rate increase to cover that, but the increase is spread over the next three years so us customers don't get dinged so hard.
              Sometimes we get rebates when things go well.
              Also, Ga Power's pro

          • Rates in Georgia are actually pretty low, and they offer multiple plans:

            Residential customers will pay $4 more per month as soon as the third unit begins generating power. That could hit bills in August, two months after residential customers saw a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs."

            These are telling numbers. The $16/month increase for natural gas and other traditional fuels is 4x the cost for the new plant. In addition, as we saw in the last year or so, the price pressures on natural gas and other fuels are dependent on weather extremes, Canadian consumption, Russian military strikes, OPEC geopolitics, etc. Those are risks that should also be factored into the comparison with nuclear energy.

          • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            Looking at the AP article, those prices are going up to pay for the new power plant:

            Prices are going up all over the place. I checked the price steak at the grocery store the other day. I was wondering where the rest of the cow was. I'm going to consider a price increase of $4 money well spent since it will offset carbon emissions and other pollution.

        • This will undo some mods, but the "extras" here are significant. The "Fuel Cost Recovery" charge is 4.3-4.6 cents/kWh (or up to almost 6.7 cents/kWh if you're on the time of use plan), and there is also an Environmental Compliance charge, Nuclear construction cost recovery, municipal franchise fee, and sales tax. The 1 c/kWh looks good, and it's cheaper than other times, but it's nowhere near what you're actually going to be charged.
          • by poptix ( 78287 )

            Those per kWh charges are within a tenth of a cent of what I pay in Minnesota where we have two old (1967, 1968) nuclear power plants.

            We also have an additional $31 worth of base fees, plus state tax, county tax, city tax, transit improvement tax, and city fees.

          • Meanwhile in California. rates can be as high as .51/kwh and .35 on the low end depending on time of day and whether baseline is crossed. As an electric car owner, I expect this next bill will cross $1,000 for the first time.

            Next up is going to be income based pricing.

            • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

              As an electric car owner, I expect this next bill will cross $1,000 for the first time.

              *choak*

              Did I read tht right? Did you way your power bill was a grand?

    • by boskone ( 234014 )

      I wonder what percentage of the overage as well as the overall budget and timeline was due to legal and administrative challenges that ended up being big nothing burgers. In my experience, building anything anywhere nowadays is years of the jurisdiction asking for technical reports that don't don't change the outcome and that just waste a majority of the project costs and timeline, but don't improve safety.

      • Re:Sooo (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:30PM (#63729228)

        I wonder what percentage of the overage as well as the overall budget and timeline was due to legal and administrative challenges that ended up being big nothing burgers. In my experience, building anything anywhere nowadays is years of the jurisdiction asking for technical reports that don't don't change the outcome and that just waste a majority of the project costs and timeline, but don't improve safety.

        This is true of any big project nowadays. Try building a new hydro dam or HVDC line and the same problems will arise. Imagine trying to build a national railway today, or an interstate highway system. It could never be done. People who hate civilization will tie it up just because it makes them feel good and if they can double the cost of everything they consider that a "win". People with no redeeming value to humanity, that is.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 )

      Gee... corrupt politicians and regulators lining their pockets in Georgia. Color me (not) surprised.

      Meanwhile, the unit cost of a Virginia class submarine it $2.3-$4.8 billion, depending on the variant. Each one comes with a far more technologically advanced (albeit with lower designed power output) and more versatile reactor than this plant in Georgia. And defense procurement has no shortage of corruption and pocket-lining itself. So, don't blame nuclear power. Blame Georgia.

      • Re:Sooo (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @04:28PM (#63729418)

        Blame Georgia.

        Now that's a weird spelling, I can't even know if you meant NRC or the environmental movements there. The government of Georgia was barely involved in this project. Also, the reason that sub reactor is so much better, well that's because the reactor there is actually designed for use on a sub. The reactors we use in civilian power are of the same sub-targeted design but scaled up and over-engineered in the extreme. So its badly designed for its purpose while the sub's reactor is purpose built. Turns out, that matters a lot in reactor design. And the reason we still use a sub design for civilian power is a desire to avoid the NRC's regulations. A really good lesson in the short-comings of regulation and paperwork to provide safety.

        • Also, the reason that sub reactor is so much better, well that's because the reactor there is actually designed for use on a sub. The reactors we use in civilian power are of the same sub-targeted design but scaled up and over-engineered in the extreme. So it's badly designed for its purpose while the sub's reactor is purpose built. Turns out, that matters a lot in reactor design.

          While PWRs are based on the same design as su and surface naval reactors, BWRs are different. PWRs in vessels use a pressurized system and steam generators while BWRS boil water in the core to directly drive a turbine. The both use control rods and light water but the designs are fundamentally different. The US also tried some gas cooled designs but operational issues made them inferior to light water designs.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      How many countries have deep decarbonized with just solar and wind? Oh that's right zero. Germany spent 500 billion euros and failed.

      As for Vogtle 3 and 4, 2/3 of the cost is interest on loans. That's a problem that can be fixed. Say by funding new projects with public pension funds.

      • by tragedy ( 27079 )

        As for Vogtle 3 and 4, 2/3 of the cost is interest on loans. That's a problem that can be fixed. Say by funding new projects with public pension funds.

        How would that fix the problem? Unless you're talking about straight up embezzling pensions? That kind of money is supposed to be invested in something that will bear interest or otherwise get a return on investment. So, either there has to be interest on loans from the pension fund, or your just straight up stealing or at least severely mismanaging the pension fund.

        Face it, whether it's principal or interest, money that you have to pay is money that you have to pay. You can't simply dismiss it.

        • by sfcat ( 872532 )
          We charge nuclear projects 3x the normal interest rate (9% instead of 3% when this project was financed decades ago). If you wanted your pension fund to actually be solvent going forward, getting 3x the normal bond returns is pretty much the only way to do that in a reasonable manor. That being said, there is nowhere near enough nuclear debt on the market to keep pension funds solvent, in fact there probably isn't any series of events that can happen to keep them solvent over the next decade. Turns out,
          • by tragedy ( 27079 )

            None of that really answers my question about how using money from pension funds for nuclear plants would mean there's not interest.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's basically what happened to EDF, they took on so much debt trying to build new reactors that the French government had to nationalize them. So the taxpayer ended up paying for it in the end, although with the subsequent energy price rises due to the war in Ukraine it did at least allow the French government to cap retail price rises at 4%.

      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        How many countries have deep decarbonized with just solar and wind? Oh that's right zero. Germany spent 500 billion euros and failed.

        Are you trolling? The plan for them is to decarbonize by 2045. [cleanenergywire.org]

        • Initial poster: "How many countries have deep decarbonized with just solar and wind? Oh that's right zero."
          Ichijo: "The plan for them is to decarbonize by 2045."

          So the initial poster was right: zero country have managed to deep decarbonize their electricity grid with wind and solar so far. Even Germany after 30 years and 500 billion of investment, is still emitting 10 times more CO2eq per kWh than its french neighbor, which built its nuclear plants in the 70s. That also means the french have been deep decar

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            Germany...is still emitting 10 times more CO2eq per kWh than its french [sic] neighbor

            That was true in 2016 [environmen...ogress.org]. In the following 6 years, they closed the gap to 4.5x (in 2022, Germany=385g CO2 per kWh [statista.com], France=85g CO2/kWh [statista.com]).

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            Let's not even talk that their plan to decarbonize by 2045 is a big scam: they keep building gas plants, and updated their national strategy just last week to commit to fossil-based hydrogen

            Let's not talk about that because they aren't planning to use it to generate electricity. From your article:

            Clean-burning hydrogen fuel is expected to [be used in Germany] as a feedstock for steelmaking and the chemicals industry as well as in heavy-duty transport.

            So that argument is just a big nothingburger.

        • So zero dumbfuck
    • Because there's no economy of scale due to decades of US nukophobia. Look at how the French to it and be green with envy.
      • The French also had decades of nukophobia. Nearly all their left is still against. They have stopped making reactosr for a long time and have lost many key competences. They are working on rebuilding them and are planning new reactors but they have budgetary problems.

        • by shmlco ( 594907 )

          A lot of the anti-nuclear hysteria generated back in the 60s and 70s was apparently directly orchestrated and funded by the Seven Sisters: Exxon, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Socal, British Petroleum, and Royal Dutch Shell.

          We have just SO much to thank the fossil fuel industry for....

          • Don't forget Russia. They helped fund the anitnuclear movement too. Especially in western Europe.
          • by Creepy ( 93888 )

            Seriously, I was taught a nuclear reactor was basically a nuclear bomb that was a controlled reaction to produce energy slower so it didn't blow up the reactor. Sorry, public education in the US, MASSIVE FUCKING FAIL. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if fossil fuels was behind it, but even nuclear got presidents behind it, Nixon killed Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactors to preserve building something like 106 conventional reactors in California. Economy uber alles?

        • They are working on rebuilding them and are planning new reactors but they have budgetary problems.

          Huh? Which budgetary problems are you talking about?
          The sites for the 6 new reactors have been chosen, and they are working on rebuilding their nuclear industry.

    • by realxmp ( 518717 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:43PM (#63729272)

      $31B instead of $14B and 8 years late. For a technology that is supposedly mature. How pathetic.

      The thing is the tech for the previous generation of reactors is mature, this generation is all new designs, thus you pay the prototype penalty. it's engineering, and on a mega scale so sometimes the only way to test things out is to build it. Unfortunately because folks decided not to build reactors for a few decades a certain amount of expertise retired or left the industry. These are people who made all the mistakes and learnt not to do them again so we again have to pay a learning cost.

      The best choices are thus: either build lots of reactors of the same design over and over again or don't build them at all. Build just a few and you get this, and really what else did you expect?

      • by shmlco ( 594907 )

        That's why I have hope for SMRs. Build one design and iterate on it, increasing economies of scale at the same time.

    • Re:Sooo (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:48PM (#63729296)

      This is an improvement! My (relatively) local Watts Bar Reactor 2 started construction in 1973 and was completed in, I shit you not, 2016 .

      For perspective, the Voyager 1 spacecraft was launched four years after the start of this reactor's construction and and left our solar system four years before it came online.

      (To be fair, the primary delays were political, not technical. Still...)

      • From wikipedia:
        "Unit 2 was 60% complete when construction on both units was stopped in 1985 due in part to a projected decrease in power demand.[4][5] In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Board approved completion of Unit 2 "

        If you stop building something when it is 60% done, and want to restart construction again 22 years later, that's hardly the fault of the nuclear industry if it took so long to be completed...

        But nice way to cherry pick information.

    • 1.1 gigawatts, 31 gigadollars, about $31 per watt, lifespan 80 years. My phone spends about 1/5 its time plugged in to charger at 5 watts, I could say it runs on about 1 watt average. I would indeed pay $31 for the battery pack that charges my phone in perpetuity, without ever needing charging itself, and which I can pass on to future generations before it needs replacement in 2103 AD.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The technology is mature, the politicians who interfere at every step, not so much.

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:36PM (#63729246)

    ... first new American reactor built from scratch in decades.

    Is there another way to build a new reactor?

    I searched Amazon for kits, but didn't find anything. Should I try Newegg or CDW? Maybe Walmart?

  • The man that plant Vogtle was named after was more interesting than the plant.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • This explains a lot. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doubledown00 ( 2767069 ) on Monday July 31, 2023 @03:47PM (#63729290)

    It's now clear why Georgia Power has been so hostile to rooftop solar over the past 2 - 3 years. They can't have the peons become energy independent when there are two nuclear reactors to pay for.

    In the civilized world such an arrangement would be called a "conflict on interest". In the South it's "good business".

    • It's now clear why Georgia Power has been so hostile to rooftop solar over the past 2 - 3 years. They can't have the peons become energy independent when there are two nuclear reactors to pay for.

      Don't worry. Going forward, Georgia Power will sell lighting kits consumers can use to power those solar panels at night and those kits will get their power from the Georgia grid. It'll be a win-win. :-)

      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        And the econuts will buy those kits, and brag about how high they get sniffing their own morally superior farts.

  • can do for you.
  • Rooftop solar costs about $20k. For 500,000 homes, that's 10 billion right there. They'll have to be replaced in about 20 years. So that's 26 billion factoring in inflation. Then there's the cost of disposal which I can't find any numbers on but it's a pretty good bet that it won't be cheap or easy. But that's just residential. Commercial and industrial are going to have much higher power requirements as well as higher voltages and polyphase. This is all assuming that overall power demand stays flat

    • Rooftop solar panels are routinely warranted for 25 years and there's no reason they can't last longer. There are no fuel costs and little maintenance expense. The power is mostly used where it is generated and if a battery is installed the home can be grid-independent. Installation takes a few days. Recycling is in fact cheap and easy, the panels are mostly glass and aluminum.

      Contrast that with nuclear plants which also have a lifetime, apparently require 14 years to build, and $billions to decommission. T

      • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        Need to catch up with the technology. All that has been debunked.

        • Just because you say so? You've got nothing.

          • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            Because the facts say so. Do research and educate yourself. Stop looking like a fool. Discussion over.

    • There are so many errors in this analysis. Utility scale solar is about 1/3 the cost [nrel.gov] of residential solar. If you're going to compare to utility scale nuclear, you need to use utility scale solar, which means dividing your estimate by 3. Or if you really want to compare to residential solar, you need to use residential nuclear, which of course doesn't exist. Solar panels have a lifespan much longer than 20 years [thisoldhouse.com]. They require no fuel and next to no maintenance, unlike nuclear. Decommissioning nuclear

  • An actual step toward dealing with this climate change emission issue! Beats building new coal plants like China is doing.
  • I don't know who the engineer was that designed it 1100MW, but they really should loose their job for not getting an extra 110MW from somewhere.
  • Things work at the flick of switch because the power is always there.
    Nuclear generation provides this type of reliable power. Solar, wind and batteries don’t, so their power isn’t suitable most use cases.
    If you can accept the environmental impact of hydroelectric it provides reliable power except when there’s a drought. It has a large footprint.
    Nuclear is expensive to build if your project management skills are weak, however there no reason to believe that the plants won’t run for a

  • Follow the Money. Georgia Power got rate increases approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission BEFORE they began construction, and have passed along each cost increase through additional rate increases. So, in reality, their customers were paying for this LONG before it began operation and now they just got another large rate increase to cover the cost of Fossil Fuels for their other plants.
  • You have to go through such extreme measures to make a nuclear accident. If you leave uranium in the ground, it rarely goes critical. You have to dig it, refine it, and moderate it--just keep playing with it, yes, like they are doing.

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Working...