[ RadSafe ] Intervenors in Florida Nuclear Plant Send out Warning
rhelbig at california.com
Sun Mar 9 18:11:19 CDT 2008
>From the other side - in case any of you are interested
The article copied below and previously distributed through E advocacy is
from Nucleonic's Week, a nuclear industry publication.
The information included in the article regarding cost is interesting though
not totally accurate.
What is very important to be understood is that this article does not
mention the only anti-nuclear, pro efficiency/clean energy intervenors that
legally and formally participated in the hearing.
Though we expect this kind of treatment from the nuclear industry, it causes
us great concern to see the misinformation, disinformation by omission,
spread onto and through the E-advocacy web page and beyond.
Here are the links to the pre hearing and post hearing statements of
intervenors Bob and Jan Krasowski.
The third link is to the complete list of filings in this docket. Anyone
interested in knowing the true facts regarding this case can find them as a
matter of record on the web page of the Florida Public Service Commission.
You can't believe what is being written in the press.
The transcripts of the hearing are there as well, including our cross
examination of the witnesses, the only anti-nuclear cross examination of the
entire case. The public testimony given by others concerned which is
entered into the case as heresay is also included in the transcripts.
We have experienced not only a news blockade from most of the traditional
media but have also been subjected to a lack of cooperation from traditional
environmental organizations that have been exaggerating their own
involvement and not helping us get the word out about our considerable
If any of you are in a position to help get the word out we would appreciate
you assistance in breaking open what has become a news blackout.
Bob and Jan Krasowski
In a message dated 3/7/2008 6:04:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nancylaplaca at yahoo.com writes:
FPL says cost of new reactors at Turkey Point could top $24 billion
02/21/2008, page 3
Pam Radtke Russell, New Orleans
Building two new reactors at Turkey Point would
cost as much as $24.3 billion, depending on the
technology chosen, Florida Power & Light Co. has
told the Florida Public Service Commission.
The company said the cost for building the two
units ranges from $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion
for Westinghouse's AP1000, and $16.5 billion to
$24.3 billion for General Electric's ESBWR.
FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana said last week
that the company reached its cost estimates by
revising a 2004 study of overnight costs done by
a consortium of companies, led by the Tennessee
Valley Authority in coordination with DOE. That
study found the cost of building two ABWRs would
be $1,611 per kilowatt. In updating those
figures for 2007, FPL said, it found that costs
for materials, equipment and labor had risen
more than 50% by some indexes since 2004.
In its revisions, FPL determined that overnight
costs for the power plant island and supporting
construction would range from $6.7 billion, or
$2,444/kW, to $9.8 billion, or $3,582/kW. FPL
added owner's costs, including security, cooling
towers, site work and land costs ranging from
$1.27 billion, or $466/kW, to $1.96 billion, or
$717/kW. Additionally, FPL estimated
transmission costs and allowance for cost risk
ranging from $541.7 million, or $198/kW, to $663.6 million, or $242/kW.
According to testimony submitted to the PSC, the
total overnight cost for building two
Westinghouse AP1000's would range from $3,108 per kWh to $4,540 per kWh.
FPL then added an 11% carrying charge for
construction costs and factored in cost
escalation over the scope of the project to
reach its final figures of $5,780/kW to
$8,071/kW depending on the scope of the project and inflation.
Villafana said FPL wanted to provide the most
comprehensive cost estimate possible to the PSC
so commissioners have an understanding of what such a project will
"We decided to move on this early and make sure
that our commission and our regulators realize
that if we are going to maintain the option for
nuclear, we need to start the process today ... so
they would be able to apppreciate what its
going to take for us to build these."
In October 2007, Moody's Investor Service released a report "New Nuclear
Generation in the United States" that estimated
total costs of a nuclear plant, including
interest, would be between $5,000 and $6,000/kW.
A June 2007 study by the Keystone Center,
titled "Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding,"
concluded that overnight estimates for a new
reactor would be $2,950/kW, or between $3,600 and $4,000/kW with
During PSC hearings late last month, FPL
President Armando Olivera said the key to which
technology the company chooses is cost. He said
FPL is negotiating with GE and Westinghouse -
vendors whose technology it is coonsidering
using - to get the best commercial terms possible for itss customers.
"And at this time, we are in heavy discussions
with both entities trying to figure out how much
of that price, for example, can be a fixed price
and how much of it is going to be a variable
price," Olivera told the commission.
The company expects to make a decision on the
technology later this year, before it moves
ahead with the site certification process with
the state's Department of Environmental
Protection. FPL intends to file an application
with NRC in 2009 for a combined construction permit and operating
PSC Commissioner Nathan Skop said during the
hearings that by FPL's own admission in previous
discussions with the PSC, the company is "in
further depth of discussions with one particular
vendor, and they're using that as the basis for
a lot of the things that have come before us ...
If I weree a betting man, I think I could make a
judgment call on which technology they may go with." Skop didn't say
which technology he believed FPL favors.
The three-day technical hearing in Tallahassee,
Florida was about FPL's request to certify the
need for two new reactors at Turkey Point. FPL
has requested the need determination in order
to move forward with plans to have the new reactors online in 2018 and
In its request for the need certification, FPL
said, "Failure to initiate development of the
Project now, which would be the immediate
consequence of the Commission not granting this
petition, would irrevocably foreclose the
possibility of adding new nuclear capacity by
2018 and in fact would preclude the addition of such capacity before
The PSC staff is expected to issue its
recommendation on need for the new reactors by
March 6, and the five-member commission is
expected to vote on the request March 18.
During the hearing, Olivera said the only way to
meet the company's projected need for an
additional 8,200 MW in 2020, without increasing
the company's dependence on natural gas, is
through more new nuclear generation. Even with
the addition of two new units at Turkey Point,
and demand side management practices, the
company will have a shortfall of between 3,120
MW and 3,960 MW to meet summer peaking loads in
2020, according to company testimony.
"Based on everything we know today, this is the
only best option that we have that contributes
meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions," Olivera said. "It provides needed
base load capacity. It improves fuel diversity,
and it reduces Florida's dependence on natural gas and oil fuel."
With the new units, FPL's nuclear generation
would increase from 16% to 27%, according to an
opening statement by FPL's general counsel, Wade
Litchfield, who represented the utility in the
hearing. The two new units at Turkey Point could
contribute 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions
reductions that FPL would be called on to
provide by 2021 under a plan proposed by Florida
Governor Charlie Crist. Litchfield also said
that the new units are the most cost effective option for new
In addition to certifying the need for the new
units, FPL also requested that the PSC approve
the company spending $16 million this summer to
reserve a forging spot at Japan Steel Works.
Florida's Office of Public Counsel, the state's
consumer advocate arm, argued that determination
should be made at later cost recovery hearings.
A handful of opponents to the plan addressed the
commission before testimony began. Most were
concerned with the water use of the plant and nuclear waste.
Barry Parsons, who identified himself as a
citizen from Madison County, said he was
concerned about nuclear waste and plant safety.
"I find it incomprehensible that this commission
and this state is actually seriously considering
approving a new nuclear power plant."
Dawn Shirreffs of Florida's Clean Water Action
told the commission that construction
of the units doesn't qualify under Florida law because it is not the
effective alternative. "Florida Power has not addressed the most basic
regarding cost, feasibility and water before
coming to you today. Instead, they
await your approval so that risky investments
into due diligence can be done on the
ratepayer's dime while Florida Power & Light earns interest," Shirreffs
Intervenors include the Orlando Utilities
Commission, a municipal utility that is seeking
a minority ownership interest in the new FPL
units, and Seminole Electric Cooperative, which
said it was spurned by FPL when it approached
the company about a stake in the new units.
One of the key issues raised in questioning was
the water source for cooling the new units,
which will need 80 million gallons of water a
day. Villafana said recently that the company is
focusing on several options, including treated
wastewater, and has made a commitment not to use drinking water for
FPL won approval from the Miami Dade County
Commission in December 2007 for zoning variances
that would allow the company to build the new units at Turkey Point.
More information about the RadSafe