St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
Multimedia report
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Letter to the editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message
 

Price triples for Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant in Levy

Progress Energy's planned plant costs $17-billion.

By Asjylyn Loder, Times Staff Writer
Published March 11, 2008


ADVERTISEMENT

Progress Energy tripled its estimate for its new nuclear power plant in Levy County, saying Monday that the new price is$17-billion.

Customers could start paying for it next year, with the average residential customer facing an increase of about $9 a month.

"You can't avoid the notion that nuclear has an upfront cost for the customer," said Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress Energy Florida. "It does."

Gov. Charlie Crist said he'll continue to support nuclear power. It will make a critical contribution to the state's fuel diversity and energy independence, he said. It's worth the rising cost.

"I think this is an investment in Florida's future that is important to make," he said Monday. "It will ultimately result in lower costs for customers because of the rising costs of oil and natural gas."

New nuclear will pay off, Lyash argued. Without it, customers would end up paying an additional $1-billion a year for fuels like natural gas. Fossil fuels would end up providing 85 percent of the utility's electricity within a decade. Greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise.

With nuclear, fuel will be cheaper, reliance on fossil fuel will wane, and greenhouse gases will decline, Lyash said.

The St. Petersburg utility plans to give more details to state regulators today, including how the plant will impact monthly bills. Under Florida law, Progress Energy can start to bill customers for financing and preconstruction costs years before a new plant goes into service.

Lyash estimated that the customers' monthly bills will increase an average 3 percent to 4 percent a year over the next decade but are expected to spike as construction intensifies.

Despite Lyash's assurances, the new price could leave some with sticker shock. The number will reverberate throughout the Southeast, where at least five similar projects have been announced. Utilities have said that surging prices for commodities like steel and concrete have driven up the cost of new nuclear, but Progress Energy is the first to offer a firm estimate.

In recent weeks, the much vaunted "nuclear renaissance" has shown signs of weakening, as the rising price erodes support. South Carolina Electric & Gas, along with two subsidiaries of Southern Co., have already delayed their plans. In January, a utility pulled the plug on a planned nuclear plant in Idaho.

"We're seeing some of the utilities backing off," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Lyash emphasized that Progress Energy has not yet decided to build a new nuclear plant in Florida. The utility decided to go ahead with its application to state regulators today because it still believes that nuclear is the best option in terms of cost and environmental impact, Lyash said.

The utility paid more than $80-million for 5,200 acres in Levy County, about 10 miles north of its Crystal River power plant. It plans to build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each.

Smith says that costs could continue to balloon, even as lower cost options like energy efficiency get passed by, and that politicians need to reassess their support before customers start paying for it.

"Until the state of Florida has really squeezed every last drop that it can out of energy efficiency, the state of Florida needs to think about giving utilities access to customers' pocketbooks to pay for these massive construction costs," Smith said.

The nuclear industry disagrees.

"I think no matter what technology you select, there's going to be sticker shock," said Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment with the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. "The customer needs to look at the long term: If you don't choose nuclear, what are you going to choose?"

Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Asjylyn Loder can be reached at aloder@sptimes.com or 813 225-3117.

 

New nuclear prospects in Florida

What happened?

Progress Energy asked state regulators for permission to build two new nuclear reactors in Levy County. The utility also announced a new price of $17-billion, tripling the estimate offered a little more than a year ago.

Why did prices go up?

The cost of commodities like steel and cement have increased substantially, pushing up the cost of any power plant. Progress Energy's new estimate also includes a $2-billion to $3-billion transmission project, as well as the cost of land, financing, labor, fees and fuel. Early estimates didn't include those costs, the utility said.

What are the other options?

Worries over greenhouse gases have killed new coal projects in Florida. The backup plan is natural gas, which is very expensive and subject to wide price swings. New greenhouse gas regulations could also add to the cost of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, and the fuel is relatively inexpensive.

What's next?

The Florida Public Service Commission has scheduled three days of hearings starting May 21. Progress Energy will also have to file a site certification application with the Department of Environmental Protection and a license application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The utility plans to file both of those applications this year. The federal licensing application could take two to three years. Progress Energy wants to have the first reactor on line in 2016, and the second completed the following year.

Source: Progress Energy Florida

 

[Last modified March 10, 2008, 23:51:26]


Share your thoughts on this story

Comments on this article
by Ron 03/12/08 10:58 AM
As a contractor, I know costs for both labor and materials have been dropping because of the slowdown in construction. Triple the costs now is just BS. The PSC needs to check on construction costs, form someone other than PE before they ok any extra.
by Bland 03/11/08 01:28 PM
The costs per BTU of production is cheapest over the long run with nuclear power. France and Japan each have achieved over 80% of their power needs from nuclear plants. We are experiencing the "cheapest" fossil fuel costs now. It will not go down.
by Zack 03/11/08 12:03 PM
The flip side is that , both of these projects are going to generate mega construction bucks and local , state , and federal taxes .Sounds like economic stimulation to me .The young folks not the elderly will pay for and enjoy both of these projects
by tim 03/11/08 11:30 AM
Just bring a nuclear sub into Bayboro and run an extention cord over to the old generator plant.
by Paul 03/11/08 10:58 AM
Aren't our energy bills already being charged for this 'new' power plant? Now what, we have to pre-pay even more?
by Paul Simmons 03/11/08 10:24 AM
Progress could install over 500,000 PV solar systems on their customers' roofs and feed the grid with them during the day. There would be no need for more power plants for a very long time.
by Bob 03/11/08 10:17 AM
Shouldn't the company give up its private jets, gym and al lthe other fantastic benefits they enjoy before I pay for this too? It has no incentive to manage costs because we are footing the bill...a joke!
by Pete 03/11/08 10:12 AM
What's the alternative? Do nothing and pay more in natural gas and oil? Pay now, save later. Or do nothing and pay now and pay later.
by Jay 03/11/08 09:54 AM
Why do I see this going like the de-sal plant mess we have now.
by David 03/11/08 09:40 AM
"Under Florida law, Progress Energy can start to bill customers for financing and preconstruction costs years before a new plant goes into service." ??? Are you kidding me? That's a sweetheart of a deal!! Stop it ! NOW! Recind that law!
by kitty 03/11/08 09:35 AM
Marty S. the Navy doesn't have investors and shareholders who demand record profits quarter after quarter. The Navy doesn't throw big, expensive black-tie receptions every time a new CO takes command. My boss gets invites to these things frequently.
by robert 03/11/08 08:47 AM
I will do it for 16.5 Billion.
by Kay 03/11/08 08:39 AM
Isn't there waste involved with Nuclear Power? Isn't Progress Energy a for-profit company? We need new types of energy. Can we look for advances in Solar power?
by Nathan 03/11/08 08:37 AM
"Customers could start paying for it next year, with the average residential customer facing an increase of about $9 a month." Where is the source information which provided this number?
by Kathleen 03/11/08 08:35 AM
According to the book ò01CA Golden Thread, 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technologyò01D( 1980, Butti & Perlin, Cheshire Books, Palo Alto), in 1941 solar water heaters outsold conventional units in Miami by two to one. (Page 152) Go Solar!!!
by Marty S. 03/11/08 08:07 AM
Hmmmm...it doesn't cost the US Navy 17B to build a nuclear powered carrier or sub. Why so much?
by ExPowerGuy 03/11/08 07:07 AM
No Surprises here Progress always has a story for why they need more money from the customer but never an answer for why they are so inefficient. Progress is not sure if they want to build a plant but they are sure the customer is going to pay !
by Drew 03/11/08 06:59 AM
Why not solar power? Porgress energy should put solar panels on every roof. Cleaner and greener. Are you listening Charlie??
by geezer 03/11/08 06:55 AM
Why aren't we talking about solar energy yet?
by DAVE 03/11/08 06:02 AM
Save this morning's headline so you can insert "New Stadium's" price triples if the present insanity is approved.
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT