N-plant economics news at nuclear.com

In its annual report filed this week TVA said the restart of the Browns Ferry Unit 1 nuclear reactor near Athens cost about $90 million more than its original $1.8 billion budget. The unit was restarted in May after being shut down in 1985 for safety reasons. The restart occurred after a five-year effort... In the management discussion of its fiscal 2007 annual report, the Tennessee Valley Authority reported that the cost overrun was due in part to preparing the reactor for a power uprate, so it can generate up to 20 percent more power than its current 1,155 megawatts.

Ref: Brian Lawson (Huntsville Times business writer), "Unit 1 restart overshot budget; Browns Ferry action cost extra $90M, TVA says", The Huntsville Times, December 15, 2007

October 25, 2006

* Duke: Critics mistaken on nuclear costs
Charlotte Business Journal

* THE POSSIBILITY OF A REAL POWER LUNCH
National Center for Policy Analysis (TX)

Expand nuclear power -- nuclear power is efficient and virtually emissions-free; as much as 75 percent of France's electric power is created by nuclear reaction ...

* EU Commission investigates financing of Olkiluoto nuclear plant
Helsingin Sanomat (Finland)

The European Commission announced on Tuesday that financial arrangements in the ongoing construction of the third nuclear reactor at Olkiluoto in the west of ...

* Briefing: EU ...
International Herald Tribune (France)

... bank loan to the Finnish power company Teollisuuden Voima that may have helped a French-German supplier win a contract to build Finland's newest nuclear plant. ...

* Hutchison: Diversity is the issue
Odessa American (TX)

... independence, Hutchison said. 'Now, we've got some incentive for people to invest in nuclear power,' she said. ...

July 17, 2006

CANDU - 4-1/2 yr construction time holds record in China

Team CANDU delivers proven construction expertise -- on time and on budget. AECL and its private sector partners have designed, built and delivered six CANDU 6 reactors to international customers in the last nine years -- all on or ahead of schedule, and on budget. In fact, the first unit in China, at Qinshan (our most recent project), took only 41/2 years from first concrete to in-service, making it a record for power reactors built in China. This project has been praised as the best nuclear project in China's history by the Chinese government.

[Source: Jack Scott (general manager of Team CANDU), "Candu has the power", Windsor Star (Ontario), July 17, 2006, p. A6]

July 4, 2006

* Who would invest billions in a facility that could be zeroed-out by accident elsewhere before ever making a cent?

July 3, 2006

* Mitsubishi Heavy's new US subsidiary seeks NRC design certification for advanced PWR by 2011

June 30, 2006

* Romania - lots of companies lining up as investors in Cernavoda-3 and -4

June 28, 2006

* UK considers streamlined 3-1/2-to-4-year licensing process for new n-plants

June 19, 2006

N-power - marketplace proves it is uneconomic

There is nothing to stop private investors from building nuclear reactors today, but not a single private consortium has done so anywhere in the world without lashings of taxpayers' largesse since the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The government's claim that it will not subsidise new reactors falls apart in the face of potential investors announcing - as E.ON UK did yesterday - that they cannot cover decommissioning costs.

Investors have taken a shrewd view of the risk, and have decided not to build. The operating and running costs of nuclear power are far from attractive and these costs do not include the unknown future costs of decommissioning reactors and storing waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years.

Nor are the potential costs of accidents included: there are still 200,000 radioactive British sheep because of soil contaminated by Chernobyl. The latest estimate of the clean-up costs of retiring our existing reactors has soared to Ł70bn, and will not stop there. There is still no long-term solution to nuclear waste. And nuclear reactors are uninsurable. Why write another blank cheque?

The group building the new Finnish reactor has a guaranteed price for its output. If the decommissioning fund proves too small, the government will make up the difference. It will also be responsible for all waste after 60 years. With a deal like that, your profits are as safe as government bonds.

Even worse for nuclear - and for any taxpayers foolish enough to subsidise it - the technology has an unblemished record of budgetary incontinence. Not one reactor in this country has been built on time or to budget. Nor is this testimony to the tribulations of British planning. The Finnish reactor is already running more than six months late. Nuclear has failed worldwide to such an extent that the World Bank refuses to lend on nuclear projects.

[Source: Chris Huhne (UK - shadow environment secretary for the Liberal Democrats), "Tried, tested and failed: Nuclear power is now so discredited that even the World Bank won't lend money to build reactors; Nuclear power has had its chance and has proved it can't survive without huge subsidies", The Guardian (London), June 20, 2006, p. 30]

* [2006-03-16] EIA: Nukes Win, Coal Loses in Trading
The Electricity Daily

Nuclear power should prosper in a CO2 cap-and-trade environment, according to a recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration. EIA's reference case sees 6 GW of new nuclear capacity through 2030. But in the trading regimes that it analyzed, nukes add between 25 GW and 123 GW (which would represent more than double the number of nuclear plants in the U.S. today). EIA, at the request of Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), looked at several trading programs patterned on a 2004 report from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a private, bi-partisan group (1ED, Dec. 13, 2004). EIA did a similar analysis in 2005, using its Annual Energy Outlook 2005 for base-case estimates of energy prices (2ED, April 25, 2005). Salazar requested the new analysis because of the recent major increases in energy prices, reflected in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2006. So the statistical arm of the Energy Department ran the analysis against the base higher price scenario.

By the way, although the two most stringent regimes would lead to declines in coal generation below 2004 levels, none of the scenarios that EIA examined will result in lower annual total USA emissions of greenhouse gases than in the 2004 base year. "In all cases except the most stringent one," says EIA, GHG emissions continue to increase over the entire 2004 through 2030 period. In the most stringent case, GHG emissions increase slowly through 2018 and then fall until they are only 0.5 percent above the 2004 emission level in 2030."

December 5, 2005

* The New Economics of Nuclear Power
World Nuclear Association (pdf-310 kb)

An international team of industry experts, distilling recent independent studies, concludes that nuclear power has become, in most major countries, the least-cost means of producing added base-load electricity. "At this stage in the nuclear renaissance, this is the most definitive analysis of the costs of building and operating nuclear power plants in the 21st century," said John Ritch, the WNA's Director General. "Nuclear power has already attained widespread recognition for its benefits in fossil pollution abatement, near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, price stability, and security of energy supply. The impressive new development is that these virtues are now a cost-free bonus, because nuclear energy has become the world's least expensive way to generate electricity."

Among the work incorporated into the report are recent studies by such respected bodies as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD (NEA). The WNA Report highlights and confirms IEA-NEA comparisons based on data assembled even before recent surges in fossil prices. Total electricity costs for power plant construction and operation were calculated at two interest rates. At 10%, mid-range generating costs per kilowatt-hour are nuclear at 4.0 cents, coal at 4.7 cents, and natural gas at 5.1 cents. At a 5% interest rate, mid-range costs per kWh fall to nuclear at 2.6 cents, coal at 3.7 cents, and natural gas at 4.3 cents. Increased fossil fuel prices tilt this balance still further toward nuclear power.

The WNA Report finds that the increased competitiveness of nuclear power is the result of cost reductions in all aspects of nuclear economics: construction, financing, operations, and waste management and decommissioning. Among the cost-lowering factors are the evolution to standardized reactor designs, shorter construction periods, new financing techniques, more efficient generating technologies, higher rates of reactor utilization (i.e. increased capacity factors), and longer plant lifetimes.

"Nuclear energy's pre-eminence economically and environmentally has two implications for government policy," said Ritch. "First, governments should ensure that nuclear licensing and safety oversight are not only rigorous but also efficient in facilitating timely deployment of advanced power reactors. Second, governments should be bold in incentivizing the transformation to clean-energy economies, recognizing that such short-term stimulus will, in the case of nuclear power, simply accelerate desirable changes that now have their own long-term momentum."

November 20, 2005

Nuclear - big advantage when gas is $5/Mbtu; looks even better as gas price hit $14/Mbtu last month

The economic appeal of nuclear power has risen as prices for natural gas and coal -- fuels for the bulk of America's electricity -- have climbed. The price of natural gas, especially, has soared. In October, it touched $14 per million British thermal units. That was nearly double the price from October of last year. "There's a big advantage for operating a nuclear plant when gas prices are in the $5 range, much less where they are today," said John C. Kohli, portfolio manager at the Franklin Utilities fund.

[Source: Tim Gray (New York Times, Money and Business/Financial Desk), "Can Nuclear Power Become Just Another Business?", The New York Times, November 20, 2005, p. 3-5

* New federal N-plant subsidies 'a bold statement' on industry's future, sez sector fund manager

Entergy's n-plants could soon boost profitability, as below market contracts expire

Entergy, with 10 reactors, is the second-biggest nuclear operator, after Exelon. Entergy's hometown utility, Entergy New Orleans, had to file for bankruptcy-court protection after Hurricane Katrina, but that division accounts for less than 5 percent of the parent's earnings, said Shelby G. Tucker, a principal at Banc of America Securities. "About a third of their earnings comes from their large nuclear fleet in the Northeast," he added. Those plants could soon contribute even more to profits. Entergy sells its power at below-market prices because of risk-hedging contracts, he said. As the hedges expire, "they'll be able to recontract at higher prices."

[Source: Tim Gray (New York Times, Money and Business/Financial Desk), "Can Nuclear Power Become Just Another Business?", The New York Times, November 20, 2005, p. 3-5

* Exelon stock up 15% this year - one of the few companies that had the good sense to buy n-plants at bargain basement prices a few years ago

* So you want to invest in nuclear power renaissance?

November 4, 2005

N-plant economics - multiply UK govt estimates by 3 or so

An analysis of figures relied on by the government suggests that they have underestimated the true costs of new nuclear power by nearly threefold. Starting from the British Energy/BNFL estimate of 3p/kWh, the price goes up 1.3p/kWh by using an average, rather than best, cost for new reactors. Using the International Energy Agency's construction estimates pushes the price up by the same again. So-called "first-of-a-kind" costs incurred with new reactor designs add about 0.1p/kWh.

Allowing for delays and cost overruns adds at least a further 1.8p/kWh. Lowering the assumed performance of new stations to what has been achieved adds 0.8p/kWh, taking the total to around 8.3p/kWh. These costs exclude risks and liabilities arising from under-insurance, pollution and terrorism.

...Accidents, too, are expensive. Ukraine's bill more than a decade after the Chernobyl disaster was more than $120bn (Pounds 68bn). Swiss Re, the world's second largest reinsurer, concludes: "One of the most perilous shortcomings in traditional property insurance and reinsurance concerns inadequate nuclear risk exclusions."

...If the government concedes to the nuclear industry's demands to underwrite additional nuclear capacity it will be the biggest scam on the public since Enron discovered creative accounting or Nigeria discovered the internet. But then, there is always a danger that big races get fixed by the organisers.

[Source: Andrew Simms (policy director - New Economics Foundation), "The fallacy that nuclear energy will prove to be our saviour", Financial Times (London, England), November 4, 2005, p. 17]

August 5, 2005

* Nuke plant plans aired; State to offer tax breaks if Bellefonte site is chosen
David Brewer, Huntsville Times (AL)

A committee from NuStart executives has been looking at Bellefonte this week and will continue touring the site next week before visiting five others the group is studying. Garry Miller of NuStart said the consortium will select two sites in late September and immediately start the process of applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction and operating license for them. The target date for getting a license is 2010. One site, he said, will be chosen for a General Electric-designed reactor and the other for one designed by Westinghouse. Jack Bailey, vice president of TVA's nuclear asset recovery division and a member of the NuStart group studying the six sites, said Bellefonte has several advantages, including several structures that could be used at a new plant - cooling towers, office buildings, a water intake line from the Tennessee River and its switchyard and transmission lines. Bailey said the proposal calls for building a plant in four to five years for about $4.5 billion. 2,000 to 3,000 workers would be needed to build the new plant and 800 to 1,000 permanent employees to operate both units.

Alabama officials plan to offer tax breaks as an incentive: "We'll put together an aggressive response", Neal Wade, director of Alabama Development Office, told about 50 local, state and federal officials at Scottsboro High School. State Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, said he will do everything he can to lure a NuStart partner to Bellefonte, including getting legislation enacted to provide tax incentives to the utility. Tax incentive packages in Alabama are not authorized for utilities. "We understand about incentives," Barron told NuStart Wednesday. "We've used them to lure Mercedes, Toyota" and other companies. "We'll step up to the plate big time," he said. "I'll personally introduce legislation to make it happen. I can assure you the incentives and the support (are) in place." U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, who also attended Wednesday's meeting, said the recently passed federal energy bill will make it easier for utilities to build nuclear plants.

May 17, 2005

* report cover
THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER: A Study Conducted at The University of Chicago, August 2004

In 2003, DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, acting through Argonne National Laboratory, requested a study of the economic factors affecting the future of nuclear power in the United States. The study was carried out in cooperation with the University of Chicago's Department of Economics, the Graduate School of Business, and the Harris School of Public Policy. The report reviews developments in the U.S. economy that will affect the nuclear power industry in coming years include the emergence of new nuclear technologies, waste disposal issues, proliferation concerns, policies toward national energy security, and environmental policy.

* 2005-04-22: The Bottom Line: Comparing the costs of coal and nuclear electricity in N.B.
John Sutherland, SJ Telegraph-Journal

April 16, 2005

* High uranium prices prompt expansion of Wyoming mine
AP/Jackson Hole Star-Tribune

Global uranium production is 90 million pounds annually, while consumption is 175 million pounds by the 435 reactors in the world. Thirty-five more reactors are under construction in China, Taiwan, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe, which will further increase demand. International Nuclear Inc., an independent consulting organization based in Golden, Colo., recently released a report which stated that worldwide demand is increasing while stockpiles are nearing depletion. "The outlook for nuclear power has changed dramatically toward the positive since 2000," the report states. " ... The market for natural uranium concentrates has evolved from a market driven by excess secondary supplies to one driven by primary production. This change is not fleeting, but fundamental." The study predicts that uranium needs will jump from 175 million pounds per year to about 185 million by 2010 and 200 million by 2018. Prices will rise through 2006 before moderating in 2007, then remain stable from 2010 to 2018, the report forecast.

In the midst of the uranium mining industry's two-decade slump, Wyoming lawmakers exempted producers from paying state severance taxes until prices averaged at least $14 per pound for six months. That threshold was reached last year, and since then, the state has collected $290,221, according to the Wyoming Department of Revenue. Of that, $119,821 was collected from November through January, the most recent reported quarter. While the total is paltry compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars in mineral taxes paid by the state's energy giants -- coal, natural gas and oil -- it certainly indicates a revival for uranium, one that experts say shows no immediate signs of stalling. Mineral severance taxes collected by the state are distributed to a number of entities based on a statutory formula. Among the recipients are highways, schools, water projects, the state General Fund and local governments, meaning Converse County, home to the Smith Ranch mine (Wyoming's only active uranium mine), will also receive a share. The county will further benefit from increased "ad valorem" tax revenues, which are essentially property taxes on mining that are retained by the county where production occurs. Because of a lag between collection and distribution, any benefit from the higher prices won't be realized by Converse County until next year, County Treasurer Joel Schell said. ... Yellowcake prices plummeted to $7.10 per pound in December 2000 but have risen steadily since and last year surpassed $20 for the first time since 1984. This week, the spot price was $23.20, according to the Ux Consulting Co., of Roswell, Ga., up 20 cents from the previous week.

* Govt goes ahead with nuclear plant plan
Leony Aurora, Jakarta Post (Indonesia)

Seeking solutions to the steady increase of energy demand in Indonesia amid declining oil output, the government has decided to go ahead with plans to construct nuclear power plants, with the first one to begin construction in 2010. The chief of Indonesia's National Atomic Energy Agency (Batan), Soedyartomo Soentono, said that the first 1,000-megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant was expected to be delivered in 2016. Three more plants of similar capacity, which will be built in Muria in Central Java, will follow in 2017, 2023, and 2024, respectively, he said on Friday.

"Nuclear plants can produce power at about 3.5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), if their capacity is above 600 MW each," Soentono said. State power distributor Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) at present spends about 6 U.S. cents to produce 1 kwh of electricity using oil.

To be able to start construction in 2010, the government has to get all required site permits by 2006. A tender to build the planned power plant is expected to commence in 2008. If the history of nuclear power in this country is any indication, however, the nuclear naysayers should not lose any sleep. For more than 40 years, successive governments have talked up building nuclear power plants but none have ever been constructed.

April 12, 2005

New nuclear build - cost advantage over coal and gas, according to Duke Power projections

Henry "Brew" Barron (Duke Power's chief nuclear officer) said that given Duke's nuclear experience, expected rises in gas prices, and Duke's overall situation, "our assessment shows nuclear with a clear customer cost advantage over coal and gas, based on current projections."

[Source: E. Michael Blake, "Duke explores 'nuclear option'", Nuclear News, April 2005, p. 11]

December 25, 2004

Russia - 1,500-MW will be new standard n-plant size after 2007

Russia will be building only VVER-1,500 units at nuclear power plants after the year 2007, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency Alexander Rumyantsev said at a Friday press conference. "Blueprints of such units will be ready by 2007," he said. Construction of units with the capacity of 1,500 megawatt "is more advantageous economically and better than the construction of VVER-1,000 reactors," he said.

[Source: ITAR-TASS, Russia to build only VVER-1,500 reactors after 2007 - Rumyantsev, December 24, 2004 18:30]

July 5, 2004

CANDUs - 4 years to build $2-bln plant, yields 25-40 years of cheap electricity

Canadian nuclear expertise today has a new reality: Reactors go up both on time (in four years or less) and on budget and are reliable performers. Six Candu-6 reactor units have been built during the last decade in South Korea, China and Romania. All met time and budget targets. Here's the simple nuclear equation. Capital costs for a Candu-6 plant are high, at $2 billion or so. But the energy they supply over the long term -- 25 to 40 years of production -- is provided at the least expensive rate of all sources.

[Source: Murray Elston (special to the Free Press), "Green and clean, nuclear's the way to go", London Free Press (Ontario, Canada), July 5, 2004, p. A7]

March 29, 2004

Electricity costs at TVA: nuclear 2.5 cents/kWh, coal 4.5 cents/kWh, gas 6 cents/kWh

According to William Baxter, one of three directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA nuclear power costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 4.5 cents for coal and 6 cents for natural gas. [Source: David R. Francis, "After nuclear's meltdown, a cautious revival", The Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2004]

March 26, 2004

Nuclear power will fade away, on economics, gradually

The cost of wind power is now cheaper than nuclear. Gradually, nuclear power will fade away. The only question is how the long the politicians will keep it on life support.

[Source: Ole Hendrickson (citizen watchdog on nuclear issues, for decades), "Should we invest in nuclear power?", The Toronto Star,ĘMarch 26, 2004, p. A21]

March 12, 2004

CGS budget squeezed by new security mandates; 60 non-security jobs to be cut

The 60 jobs to be eliminated by June 30 at Columbia Generating Station represent about 5% of the company's workforce. About half of the job cuts will be through planned retirements, normal attrition and vacancies that will not be filled. The rest will be based on operational requirements, employee performance, versatility and length of service. The security force will not be affected. The cuts are part of the company's approach to cutting $5-million in costs during next fiscal year. More than $7-million in previously unanticipated security costs are now expected to be incurred in coming year due to new federal requirements.

[Source: Associated Press, "Energy Northwest to cut 60 jobs at Hanford nuclear plant", Seattle Times, March 12, 2004]

December 16, 2003

Japan finds n-plants still the cheapest, but advantage is lower

The Federation of Electric Power Companies estimates that the overall cost of nuclear power, including the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear waste, is 5.6 yen per kilowatt-hour. This is 0.3 yen lower than coal-burning generation and 0.7 yen cheaper than producing electricity with natural gas. The federation has submitted the estimate to the government's Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy. The cost gap is narrower than those calculated by a subcommittee on nuclear power under the government advisory panel in 1999. Kyodo News Service speculates that the latest estimate could jolt long-held industry claims that Japan should promote nuclear power because it is a cheaper source of energy.

[Source: Kyodo News Service, "New estimate cuts cost advantage of nuclear power", Japan Economic Newswire, December 16, 2003]

December 4, 2003

Power plant cost comparison - nuclear, coal, gas

If there is to be a next generation of nuclear power, the nuclear industry should set an operational cost goal of $35 per-megawatt-produced. Nuclear's current capital and operational costs are $41-$66/MW, compared to coal at $42/MW and combined-cycle gas plants at $38-$56/MW.

[Ref: Michael Sellman (president/CEO, Nuclear Management Co.), speech to the Nuclear Power Outlook 2004 conference, Arlington, Va. December 4, 2003, cited in Gregory Twachtman (Platts-Washington), "NMC president: Tax incentives won't spur plant construction", Nucleonics Week,ĘDecember 11, 2003,Ęp. 3]

October 10, 2003

* EPR Advantages - 10X safer, 10% more efficient, cheaper power, less waste

September 4, 2003

* US N-plants capacity factor up to 91%, from 62% twenty years ago

* N-plant capital cost estimate - up to 4X more than gas

July 25, 2003

* Nuclear power plant nations have 75% of world's population

* N-plant economics - shorter lead times, lower capital costs

* Tar sands - n-plant would be cheaper than gas to extract oil from Canada sands

June 10, 2003

Oyster Creek union may be in for very hard time

There's an apparent impasse between union and management involving the 217 members of the IBEW amongst Oyster Creek's 450 workers. Contract negotiations began about a year ago, and the workers went out on strike on May 22. AmerGen has been able to use it's own nuclear staff from other sites to replace the striking workers. The company has even withdrawn the last and best offer.

[Source: Andrew Johnson (Staff Writer, The Press of Atlantic City), "Striking union N-plant workers set rally today", The Press of Atlantic City, June 10, 2003]

June 9, 2003

Diablo Canyon license transfer update

* Diablo Canyon - State & local govt want Commissioners to delay NRC staff's approval of license transfer

June 7, 2003

* Oyster Creek - company and union meet for first time since strike began, but negotiations moved backwards instead of progressing

* Oyster Creek - union cites safety implications of sweeping workplace rule changes desired by AmerGen

June 3, 2003

* Browns Ferry-1 restart will pay for itself within 7 years

* No need for new n-plants, nor the prospect for overbudget & underperformance, sez Ashdown

* Browns Ferry-1 restart decision is so good, businesswise, that it was clearly the right call, sez TVA director

* Browns Ferry-1 restart ahead of schedule and under budget - 19% complete

May 27, 2003

Diablo Canyon license transferred from PG&E to new limited liability corporations

NRC issued a license transfer order today to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, consenting to the transfer of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from PG&E to Electric Generation LLC and Diablo Canyon LLC. Diablo Canyon LLC will become the owner of the facility, while Electric Generation LLC will operate and maintain DCNPP under the terms of a lease that will make Electric Generation LLC responsible for all costs of operation. This application was filed in connection with a comprehensive bankruptcy reorganization and restructuring of the businesses and operations of PG&E, including its nuclear and non-nuclear generation, transmission, and electricity distribution businesses. [Source: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Items of Interest, Week Ending May 30, 2003 -- see pdf.]

May 14, 2003

Monticello costs decreasing - 8 year trend

It cost $18.30 to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity at Monticello in 2002. The cost here has dropped an average of 2 cents a year in the last eight years. This compares to $20.80 cost at Prairie Island, which has seen rising costs over the period. By comparison, Xcel paid $40.65 per megawatt-hour for power purchased from other sources in 2002, including delivery charges. [Source: David Hanners (Pioneer Press), "Plant repair questioned", St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 14, 2003]

Natural gas price rise to boost electricity bills this summer - 33% rise in San Antonio is also partly due to STP-1 shutdown

San Antonio residents can expect to see a bigger-than-expected jump in their utility bills.

Higher natural gas prices and less power from the South Texas Project nuclear plant mean the average electric bill in San Antonio, Texas could go up 33 percent this summer compared to last year, City Public Service officials said yesterday.

Steve Bartley, CPS director of regulatory relations, said the higher monthly bills are the result of two things: customers are expected to use more electricity this year to run their air conditioners (it was pretty rainy last summer), and power is projected to be more costly to produce, mainly because of higher natural gas prices.

Although natural gas prices have dropped from a high of $20 per thousand cubic feet in February, Bartley said the utility is projecting it will pay an average market price of $5.75 this summer. That's 60 percent higher than the $3.50 paid last summer.

Throughout the year, CPS generates about 15 percent of its electricity with natural gas, 46 percent with coal and 27 percent with nuclear power. Another 12 percent comes from purchased power and wind-generated. However, more natural gas is used in the summer to help CPS fire up backup generators to meet peak demands.

Another factor, Bartley said, is that CPS will be getting only about half the electricity the utility normally does out of its 28 percent ownership of the nuclear power plant in Bay City. Last April, a routine inspection revealed signs of a leak from the Unit 1 reactor's coolant system. The reactor was shut down; it's unknown when it will return to service.

Bartley said other factors also affect the price of natural gas, including a shortage of gas in storage, economic reverberations from Gulf War II and the oil industry strike in Venezuela.

[Source: Tom Bower, "Summer electric bills may shock you", San Antonio Express-News, May 14, 2003]

PG&E and state differ on paths out of bankruptcy

PG&E wants to pay its utility creditors by breaking the unit into two companies and ending state regulation of Diablo Canyon and its hydroelectric plants. California regulators want to keep the utility intact and pay creditors with money collected from ratepayers and with an issue of preferred stock. A bankruptcy judge has placed a gag order on the parties regarding the negotiations. [Source: Rick Jurgens (Contra Costa Times), PG&E unit faces bankruptcy, Contra Costa Times, May 14, 2003]

* "... nuclear power is Progress Energy's most cost-effective source of electric generation..." [Source: Progress Energy press release, "Progress Energy Brunswick Plant successfully completes refueling outage; Unit 2 now able to generate more electricity", April 7, 2003]

* Paks-2 revenues - US$230,000/day from 467 MW

Replace "defense-in-depth" with risk-informed approach to design & regulation -- the only way to make n-plants competitive

Feb 2003 Energy security and environmental quality benefits - example of valuation for Japan

The non-market value of nuclear power in terms of energy supply security and environmental quality has been estimated to be one yen/KWhr and two yen/ Kwhr respectively in the Japanese environment.

[Source: excerpted from a technical paper by Akira Omoto, General Manager of the Nuclear Power Engineering Department at the Tokyo Electric Power Company, presented at the European Nuclear Conference (ENC) 2002, sponsored by the European Nuclear Society in Lille, France in October 2002, as reprinted in Nuclear Plant Journal, Jan/Feb 2003, p.Ę27]