Constellation Inks $1 Billion Deal To Supply US Government With Nuclear Power (reuters.com) 59
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Constellation Energy has been awarded a record $1 billion in contracts to supply nuclear power to the U.S. government over the next decade, the company said on Thursday. Constellation, the country's largest operator of nuclear power plants, will deliver electricity to more than 13 federal agencies as part of the agreements with the U.S. General Services Administration. The deal is the biggest energy purchase in the history of the GSA, which constructs and manages federal buildings, and is among the first major climate-focused energy agreement by the U.S. government to include electricity generated from existing nuclear reactors.
The GSA estimated that the contracts, set to begin on April 25, will comprise over 10 million megawatt-hours over 10 years and provide electricity equivalent to powering more than 1 million homes annually. The procurement will deliver electricity to 80 federal facilities located throughout the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission operator with service covering more than 65 million people. The U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Army Corps of Engineers are some of the facilities that will receive the power. [...] Constellation said the deal will enable it to extend the licenses of existing nuclear plants and invest in new equipment and technology that will increase output by about 135 megawatts. "The investments we make as a result of this contract will keep these plants operating reliably for decades to come and put new, clean nuclear energy on the grid while making the best use of taxpayer dollars," Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez said in a release.
The GSA estimated that the contracts, set to begin on April 25, will comprise over 10 million megawatt-hours over 10 years and provide electricity equivalent to powering more than 1 million homes annually. The procurement will deliver electricity to 80 federal facilities located throughout the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission operator with service covering more than 65 million people. The U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Army Corps of Engineers are some of the facilities that will receive the power. [...] Constellation said the deal will enable it to extend the licenses of existing nuclear plants and invest in new equipment and technology that will increase output by about 135 megawatts. "The investments we make as a result of this contract will keep these plants operating reliably for decades to come and put new, clean nuclear energy on the grid while making the best use of taxpayer dollars," Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez said in a release.
Fact checked not so much (Score:2)
Re: Fact checked not so much (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
..or 1 mWh per home per year
Would you and everyone else please stop mixing up 'm' and 'M'? Lower case 'm' means milli (i.e. 0.001); upper case 'M' means mega (i.e. 1,000,000). Unless you're literally implying 1 milliwatthour per home per year!
Re: (Score:2)
I know my house averages well over a megawatt (1,000 kWh) per MONTH.
Homes are in the low dozens of kilowatt draw, peak. If you somehow get a megawatt through your panel, you're going to be sad about it.
Perhaps you're getting confused with megawatt-hours, which are very, very different.
Re:Fact checked not so much (Score:4, Informative)
The parenthetical makes it clear that "hour" was intended but omitted after "megawatt". Muphry's Law and all, but the numbers quoted in TFS really don't add up.
Re: Fact checked not so much (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fact checked not so much (Score:1)
Cost? (Score:2)
$1,000,000,000 for 10,000,000 MWH seems a little high. Is $100 per MWH really the going rate, I thought the wholesale rate was more around $50.
This reads like it may be a news release directed at potential investors in nuclear power.
The devil is in the details (Score:2)
I doubt that's constant power of 114 MW 24/7, more likely there is a demand curve which pushes up the average price.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that reliable energy from nuclear fission costs a tad more than unreliable energy from wind and sun? I'm shocked.
Actually I'm not shocked, people are willing to pay more for something reliable over something not reliable. I know someone is likely ready to reply with how batteries could add reliability to wind and solar power. I agree, batteries would add reliability, but they also add cost.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nuclear doesn't have a capacity factor of 100% either, i.e. the are only supplying intermittent power too. Worse still their intermittency can drop a gigawatt with no warning, so needs a lot of backup. Downtimes are often measured in weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear doesn't have a capacity factor of 100% either, i.e. the are only supplying intermittent power too. Worse still their intermittency can drop a gigawatt with no warning, so needs a lot of backup. Downtimes are often measured in weeks.
It's a good thing then that Constellation Energy operates 16 different reactors at 8 different sites, that way if one reactor is down for maintenance or suddenly lost due to some unforeseen event the other reactors can still provide power. The PJM interconnect, where Constellation Energy operates, serves 12 states. While that's a lot of area it's not all that big when compared to the area of the Earth that's not seeing sunlight at any given time. What happens to solar power output over 12 states when the
Re: (Score:3)
If only we had more than one wind turbine.
Re:Cost? (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear can't load follow cost effectively and so it needs grid storage or fossil fuels to keep the lights on, same as renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you use other power sources for your load following that are more conducive to load following, and just leave the reactors pumping for "base load" - you know, like every operator that has nuclear in the mix does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is corporate welfare, not market competition.
The price is indeed laughable.
That much money could bootstrap the entire Gen4 industry and get SMR's providing a resilient grid for the next Carrington Event (it turns out to be nodal, not uniform).
But, no, you're meant to be poor and depopulated. One party in DC calls you "the Jamokes" while the other calls you "useless eaters".
Or "subtarded" more recently.
Everybody here could design a better system for The People because the current one isn't meant t
Re: Cost? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, my bad. Obama was so supportive of nuclear power that he appointed Gregory Jaczko as Chairman to the NRC.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
While at the NRC, he voted against the opening of new nuclear plants; an inspector general report found that he sought unilaterally and improperly to block the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project from advancing. After leaving the NRC, Jaczko called for a global ban on nuclear power.
It seems to me that any POTUS that was at least mildly supportive of nuclear power would not appoint someone calling for a global ban on nuclear power to chair the NRC.
I remember Obama and McCain having a debate where when nuclear power came up Obama talked about having studies to look into nuclear power safety while McCain spoke of building new
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that any POTUS that was at least mildly supportive of nuclear power would not appoint someone calling for a global ban on nuclear power to chair the NRC.
There's an important word there. It's after.
Re: (Score:1)
There's another important word there. It's global. During his time with the NRC he was fine with banning new nuclear power plants in the USA, afterwards he wanted this policy extended to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
So about 2% of one new nuke? (Score:2)
Because that is what the cost for Hinkley Point indicates: https://apnews.com/article/uk-... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: Comparison against a nuke actually under construction makes it harder for assholes like you to lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone make a comparison against Hinkley Point? It seems to me that there's many other examples that could be used, ones that have been far more successful on staying on time and on budget.
Such as?
Vogtle? Nope. Total financial debacle. Decades behind schedule.
Flamanville? Same.
Olkiluoto? Yet another debacle.
Summer? Canceled after $3B in sunk costs squandered.
Re: (Score:3)
Why wouldn't you find a favorable comparison to fully retort the point?
Oh, because there aren't any. Every single commercial nuclear power plant under construction where we can get data (i.e. not autocratic governments known for lying) is over budget, behind schedule, or both.
But somehow you still don't see the trend.
A perennial problem with nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1948, the groundbreaking book, The Road to Survival, which coined the term "carrying capacity", in its introductory chapters it gave an example of a scientist who has just discovered a cure for some woeful disease afflicting many millions, but then has to weigh up whether, morally, they should withhold the cure, because in the end, if more people survive, it will merely cause more destruction of the environment, or at the very least, more suffering for the people because they run out of resources like food and shelter, because of the environmental destruction.
Some people call that "apocalyptic environmentalism", but I feel it's always lurking there in the background.
Whenever someone comes up with a new technology that will make everything better, this is the ultimate argument against any kind of cheap, available, reliable energy -- because by providing lots of energy, it merely encourages everything else to overshoot the carrying capacity.
It's an argument that ultimately, all of environmentalism comes down to overpopulation. If ecologists were already thinking of overpopulation in 1948, what about now, when the world's population is multiple times bigger?
I don't think it's something people like to talk about or admit, but that's partly because we've been, to some extent, propagandized into only thinking it's about "climate", or some other impersonal thing.
But there is definitely a current out there that says that it's ultimately and fundamentally about overpopulation. In that view, nuclear energy is simply bad and should always be blocked.
Some people sidestep it by making it purely a moral issue, that the West is greedy and over-consumes -- but any cut in greed will get overwhelmed by increasing population anyway, especially if people think the only sustainable carrying capacity is closer to 500 million.
When people insist that nuclear is bad and that the next batch of AA batteries they ordered from Amazon will solve the storage issue, and won't explain any further, I wonder if it's this background belief that there's too many greedy humans on the planet.
I'd rather people were open about that, rather than trying to sneak in changes to infrastructure which will deindustrialise us before anyone really notices. That would then be a case of, a few privileged folk deciding what's best for the rest of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is even older than this, it is straight up malthusian thinking.
Overpopulation turns out to be a solved problem. Heck, we are headed for the opposite problem right now.
Re: (Score:2)
How is overpopulation a solved problem?
Re: (Score:3)
a scientist who has just discovered a cure for some woeful disease afflicting many millions, but then has to weigh up whether, morally, they should withhold the cure, because in the end, if more people survive, it will merely cause more destruction of the environment
That's backward.
Peace, prosperity, and education reduce population growth.
Re: (Score:2)
And controlling for those variables, population density is associated with reduced fertility. [nih.gov] So how would you prefer to see this island developed? [twimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr: Thanos was right.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Thanos, at least the Marvel Cinematic Universe version (the original comic version had completely different motives which involved being literally in love with death), was an idiot. Consider: Thanos is an Eternal. The Earth's population has more than doubled in the last fifty years, which is just a minute fraction of his lifetime. His solution to the problem of resource over-usage is to kill off half of the population of the universe. As Earth demonstrates, and his experience over his long lifetime shou
Nuclear Fission is a bad idea IMHO. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did somebody really do the math? Like, actually sit down with a pencil, a piece of paper and a calculator - or a spreadsheet if they know that such things exist - and calculate the cost/benefit ratio?
The Germans did it - quite throroughly I would presume - and it came up short. Kalkar Fast Breeder, Replenishing Plant Wackersdorf, etc. ... All those were shut down because the math simply didn't work out. Eventually Merkel took final axe to all things Fission, seizing the opportunity when Fukushima happened and public opinion offered the tailwind for such a decision. And you'd presume the Germans know a thing or two about engineering, no?
What's with that molten salt thing Bill Gates is building in Wyoming? How is that working out? What's with those microreactors? How are they coming along? Efficiency problem solved? ... This all just looks like a huge money-hole to me.
Nuclear Fission isn't cost-effective. That seems to be the cold hard truth. It comes with loads of effort, tricky environments that need excess measures of risk-management and an epic if not flat-out geolithic waste problem attached. No, I don't buy it. It's a 1960ies techno-romantic pipe-dream that didn't pan out. The Trump gouvernement would be way better off if they just let Elon Musk plaster the US deserts with batteries and solar. It would be finished faster, likely cheaper (powerlines included) and the US would get waaaaay ahead in key renewable tech.
My 2 eurocents.
Re: (Score:3)
> And you'd presume the Germans know a thing or two about engineering, no?
Politicians? No.
They've switched from cheap Russian gas to shipped LNG at 4-5x the cost sending German industry into a spiral collapse.
Volkswagen had to close plants. BASF is moving production overseas.
Schultz stood next to the terrorist who blew up his pipeline and colluded.
It's said, "even the Germans couldn't make Socialism work".
They're on the verge of banning AfD to subvert Democracy.
Re:Nuclear Fission is a bad idea IMHO. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite sure how your interjection(s) relate(s) to my take on Nuclear Fission, but I'll bite:
They've switched from cheap Russian gas to shipped LNG at 4-5x the cost sending German industry into a spiral collapse.
Yeah. But that had zilch to do with phasing out fission and was all about (finally) cutting lose from some mafia gangster czar on a "greater russian empire" trip. A move that was overdue for roughly a decade.
Volkswagen had to close plants. BASF is moving production overseas.
And that's not because of energy but the gas itself. As a raw material.
Schultz stood next to the terrorist who blew up his pipeline and colluded.
His name is Scholz and calling the Ukranian president a terrorist is just being silly.
It's said, "even the Germans couldn't make Socialism work". ... for a very short while. But I think we can all agree that that was one of the biggest eff-ups in human history, so I guess you're right on this one.
Well, they came up with this thing called "National Socialism" which kinda sorta worked
They're on the verge of banning AfD to subvert Democracy.
The AfD would only be banned if they _themselves_ are trying to subvert democracy. The debate is wether there is enough of a case to ban them.
Re:Nuclear Fission is a bad idea IMHO. (Score:5, Informative)
>Yeah. But that had zilch to do with phasing out fission and was all about (finally) cutting lose from some mafia gangster czar on a "greater russian empire" trip. A move that was overdue for roughly a decade.
Yeah. Replacing your perfectly fine working nuclear plants with gas plants fired from an unstable nation has NOTHING to do with having to ship in gas to run your gas generators after the unstable nation throws a hissy fit or gets itself sanctioned.... right.
Anyone who relies on Russia, as a country, to remain anything other than a batshit crazy rabid dog that could go wild at any moment is an idiot.
You're taking things out of context (Score:2)
Kalkar and Wackersdorf were shut down way before P00tin came to office. And it wasn't citizen protests that did that. Even though in the case of Wackersdorf there were plenty of those.
These projects were shut down because federal and state bean counters checked the math and it was totally borked. Not falling for the sunk cost fallacy, they eventually shut them down, despite Kalkar set to be the most advanced fission reactor in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
This will get awkward when you realise how much uranium the USA imports from Russia each year.
Hint: Germany doesn't have uranium sources either. They increased their dependence on Russia by exactly zero by switching to gas, in fact they reduced it as gas is easily sourced from many different nations, like the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
sending German industry into a spiral collapse.
And it is so bad it started years before Ukraine. https://www.statista.com/chart... [statista.com], but is less bad now.
Re: (Score:2)
They've switched from cheap Russian gas to shipped LNG at 4-5x the cost sending German industry into a spiral collapse.
No they didn't. Germany industry spiralled into collapse due to the cost of gas skyrocketing due to futures trading because of the war. Switching to shipped LNG helped bring the cost down massively initially 4-5x and now getting close to parity.
Volkswagen had to close plants. BASF is moving production overseas.
No they didn't. VW has closed no plants in Germany and there are no closures currently planned. BASF hasn't built new plants in Germany for decades. They have been expanding overseas with the express plan to outsource production dating back to around 2007. Even now w
Re: (Score:3)
All those were shut down because the math simply didn't work out.
No. That's not why the German nukes were shut down.
It was a purely political decision.
Nukes are extremely expensive to build but cheap to operate.
Shutting down working nukes made no economic sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are extremely expensive to build but cheap to operate.
Is that including decommissioning costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that including decommissioning costs?
Shutting a nuke early doesn't save on decommissioning costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down working nukes made no economic sense at all.
There was very little "working" in Germany. All but a couple of nuclear plants were well and truly long past their design lifetimes and in a generally really shitty state. Many needed complete equipment retrofits which aren't cheap. A not insignificant portion were well overdue having reactors replaced.
I agree that *some* of the plants could have kept operating, e.g. Lingen's plant was one of the newest only being a tad under 40 years old (getting close to end of design life), and it along with the other of
Re: (Score:2)
What's with that molten salt thing Bill Gates is building in Wyoming? How is that working out? What's with those microreactors? How are they coming along? Efficiency problem solved? ... This all just looks like a huge money-hole to me.
If you're actually intellectually curious and not just bloviating on the subject, Illinois Energy Prof recently published a video [youtu.be] on the status of the two leading SMR projects in the US. TL;DW - his prognosis is that the molten salt guys (Natrium, funded by Bill Gates) will most likely have an operational unit in 2031 (the company itself says 2029).