The nuclear relapse has derailed -- literally!

Photo by Tom Clements, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA)Tom Clements of Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in South Carolina has documented, in photo and blog, a most remarkable development: the AP1000 nuclear reactor vessel targeted at Vogtle, Georgia has been discovered unprotected, stranded in Savannah Port since a December 15 shipment failure. Tom's remarkable blog is posted at the Aiken Leader. Connect Savannah has also reported on the "Nuclear Train Wreck."

As Tom has described it: 'the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) for the chronically delayed Vogtle AP1000 reactor construction project near Waynesboro, Georgia sits stranded and seemingly unprotected in the port of Savannah. The special railroad car carrying the 300-ton vessel had unknown mechanical problems on December 15 on exiting the port.  The NRC has said that the vessel only got one-quarter mile before a sound was heard and the car stopped.  Plans by Westinghouse and Southern Company to move the vessel are unknown. It is also unknown if the railroad car can be repaired and used or if the railroad company which owns the line is concerned that the rail car might break down again on its line in an in accessible place.  Meanwhile, the apparently unguarded reactor might be subject to sabotage and sits in apparent violation of NRC quality assurance and "administrative control" regulations.'

Not only the Vogtle, GA proposed new AP1000s, but also the proposed AP1000 "new build" at Summer, SC, are currently largely to entirely financed through "Construction Work in Progress."

Update on January 22, 2013 by admin

Photo by Tom Clements, Alliance for Nuclear AccountabilityIn a Jan. 22nd update entitled 'Vogtle Nuclear Reactor Still Stranded in Savannah; Pouring of “Nuclear Concrete” for Reactor’s Basemat Delayed Yet Again as Embarrassment and Costs Mount,' Tom Clements of Alliance for Nuclear Accountability gives the latest on the failed shipment of an AP-1000 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) from the Port of Savannah, GA bound for the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This includes photos taken by Tom on Jan. 19th (see photo, left). Remarkably, not only Southern Co., but also Westinghouse and even the Korean manufacturer of the RPV have remained silent about the failed shipment, the condition of the RPV, and plans for next steps.

Meanwhile, not only Vogtle 3 & 4, but also the proposed new AP1000 at Summer nuclear power plant in South Carolina, have made LARs (License Amendment Requests) due to difficulties encountered in the pouring of nuclear-grade concrete for the base mat under the reactors and containments themselves. The consequent delays, and hence cost overruns, associated with all these ongoing problems could well be substantial.

As Tom Clements of ANA wrote regarding the photo (above, left): 'Photo taken on January 19 of close-up of Schnabel rail car with Vogtle "reactor pressure vessel"  hidden by a tarp.  The 300-ton reactor vessel was manufactured by Doosan in Korea and shipped through the Panama Canal to Savannah.  More photos are linked at [http://aikenleader.villagesoup.com/p/vogtle-nuclear-reactor-still-stranded-in-savannah-pouring-of-nuclear-concrete-for-reactor-s-basema/951066], which also includes a link to the January 14 article which has more photos.  How long will this embarrassing and potentially costly situation continue?  It's time for Westinghouse and Southern Company to come clean about the reactor shipment but will the companies, which are profiting due to an unjust Georgia law which forces rate payers to pay in advance for the Vogtle AP1000 project, continue their perplexing silence?  It is believed that South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) has a similar Schnabel rail car, owned by Westinghouse, at its disposal in the port of Charleston, where components for the V.C. Summer AP1000 are received.  Given what has happened with the Vogtle reactor shipment, will problems develop if a similar shipment is ever undertaken from Charleston to SCE&G's V.C. Summer site near Jenkinsville, South Carolina?'

Forbes: "the nuclear renaissance may be largely over before it started"

"Burning Money" image by Gene Case, Avenging AngelsPeter Kelly-Detwiler, Contributor to Forbes, has published an op-ed entitled "New Centralized Nuclear Plants: Still an Investment Worth Making?" In it, he concludes that "the nuclear renaissance may be largely over before it started," with not only the vast majority of proposed new reactors in the U.S. being cancelled, but even paid-off old reactors like Kewaunee in Wisconsin being permanently shutdown due to crushing economics -- such as the expense of major, vitally needed safety repairs at the 40-year old reactor.

Kelly-Detwiler cites the "takes too long," "costs too much," and "bet-the-farm" nature of nuclear power for the "failure to launch" of the nuclear relapse.

Regarding that last point, Kelly-Detwiler writes:

'So it appears that the nuclear renaissance may be largely over before it started.  And yet, many projects have not yet been canceled, with utilities and ratepayers accepting ever more risk in order to rescue sunk costs. In many cases, these costs have soared or will soar into the billions. As risk management expert Russell Walker of the Kellogg School of Management is quoted as saying in the Tampa Bay Times “When the stakes get higher, it gets harder for organizations to walk away…this happens a lot.  It’s the same problem a gambler has: If I play a little longer, it’ll come around.” '

However, he points out that the only proposed new reactors that seem to be moving ahead are those privileged by Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) funding. He writes:

'In Georgia, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (owned jointly by a number of utilities, including Georgia Power) appear in somewhat better shape, but issues have cropped up there as well.  Customers currently pay $10 per month in advance to cover financing associated with the two 1,117 MW units.  Georgia Power is allowed by legislation to recover $1.7 bn in financing costs of its estimated $6.1 bn portion of the $14 bn plant during the construction period.  However, there have already been some cost problems, and Georgia Power is disputing its responsibility to pay $425 million of overruns resulting from delays in licensing approvals.  Total cost excesses to all partners total $875 mn.  The two units were expected to come online in 2016 and 2017, but in a Georgia PSC meeting in December, an independent monitor noted that expected delays of fifteen months are largely as a result of poor paperwork related to stringent design rules and quality assurance.  Those delays will likely continue to cost more money...

With low natural gas prices, efficient combined cycled turbines, more efficient renewables and a host of more efficient end-use technologies, that’s a bet fewer and fewer seem wiling to take.  Unfortunately for ratepayers at some utilities, they are at the table whether they like it or not…' (emphasis added)

If the op-ed's title is meant to imply that so-called small modular reactors might still save the day for the retreating nuclear power industry, it must be pointed out that the supposed justification for giant-sized proposed new reactors (such as the AP1000, at 1,100 MWe; the ESBWR at 1,500 MWe; the EPR at 1,600 MWe; etc.) was "economies of scale." Since small modular reactors represent the opposite end of the spectrum, it stands to reason these would be even more expensive than their super-sized, failed siblings.

In a classic February 14, 1985 piece entitled “Nuclear Follies,” Forbes wrote: 

"The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.”

"The Rust-Bucket Reactors Start to Fall"

Harvey WassermanHarvey Wasserman, editor of Nukefree.org and author of Solartopia, has written a blog inspired by the announced closure of the Kewaunee atomic reactor in Wisconsin. He begins by stating 'The US fleet of 104 deteriorating atomic reactors is starting to fall. The much-hyped "nuclear renaissance" is now definitively headed in reverse.'

He points out that Kewaunee may be but the first domino to fall, describing the impact of "low gas prices, declining performance, unsolved technical problems and escalating public resistance" at numerous other old, age-degraded, troubled reactors across the U.S., including San Onofre, CA; Crystal River, FL; Cooper and Fort Calhoun in NE; Vermont Yankee; Indian Point, NY; Oyster Creek, NJ; and Davis-Besse, OH.

Harvey writes "Many old US reactors are still profitable only because their capital costs were forced down the public throat during deregulation, through other manipulations of the public treasury, and because lax regulation lets them operate cheaply while threatening the public health."

But Harvey also points out the momentum applies to new reactors as well, such as at Vogtle, GA and Summer, SC, as well as overseas, in the wake of Fukushima, not only in Japan, but also India, and even Europe, led by Germany's nuclear power phase out. Both the Vogtle, GA and the Summer, SC proposed new reactors are propped up by CWIP gouging of ratepayers.

Harvey writes about the flagship new reactors proposed in the U.S.:

"The two reactors under construction in Georgia, along with two in South Carolina, are all threatened by severe delays, massive cost overruns and faulty construction scandals, including the use of substandard rebar steel and inferior concrete, both of which will be extremely costly to correct.

A high-priced PR campaign has long hyped a "nuclear renaissance." But in the wake of Fukushima, a dicey electricity market, cheap gas and the failure to secure federal loan guarantees in the face of intensifying public opposition, the bottom may soon drop out of both projects."

If the CWIP-financed reactors go belly up, the ratepayers will be left holding the bag, and will very likely never see their money again.

Harvey, a senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), will address "From Fukushima to Fermi-3: Getting to Solartopia Before It's Too Late" in Dearborn, MI on Dec. 7th at the official launch event for the new organization, the Alliance to Halt Fermi-3.

CWIP has cost GA & SC ratepayers $1.4 billion so far for new reactors

"Burning Money" image by Gene Case, Avenging AngelsInter Press Service reports that Georgia ratepayers have already been charged nearly $1.5 billion in CWIP surcharges for the proposed new Vogtle 3 & 4 AP1000s, suffering skyrocketing cost overruns of nearly a billion dollars, and construction problems (bad foundations, concrete, and rebar) leading to long schedule delays.

Harvey Wasserman reports that a similar amount has been charged to South Carolina ratepayers for two proposed new AP1000s at Summer nuclear power plant.

More than $900 million cost overrun documented at Vogtle 3 & 4 new reactor construction project

"Burning Money" image by Gene Stilp, Avenging AngelsA coalition of environmental groups, including North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN), has issued a press release decrying a nearly billion dollar cost overrun at the Vogtle 3 & 4 new reactor construction project in Georgia. The groups warn that further cost increases are likely, due to rushed design and construction that has led to errors, as in sub-foundation grading, rebar quality assurance, and even radiological containment "shield building" design and construction.

Given Georgia's CWIP law, ratepayers could well be left holding the bag for such cost overruns.

The coalition's expert witness Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), said: “Southern Company rushed into this project, as evidenced by the many requests for modifications of the license and early technical difficulties and problems including failure of ‘some details’ of early construction to conform to the Design Control Document, according to Georgia Power’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Indeed, a part of the cost increase of $900 million appears to be attributable to overcoming delays and rushing the project again despite construction non-compliance.  The cost increase should not be a surprise; rather it is déjà vu all over again.  Rushing nuclear power reactors is not prudent and stockholders and/or the vendors, not ratepayers, should bear the burden of such costs.  It would be much better if construction were suspended until all design issues were resolved.”