Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

North Anna 3: $500 Million Before Construction Even Begins

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, has maintained an interest in nuclear energy since his days as an undergraduate engineering student at the University of Virginia when he took a course in nuclear engineering. Now the Northern Virginia intellectual property attorney, who sees potential to build a formidable nuclear industry cluster in Virginia, is reimmersing himself in the subject.

Most recently, Cuccinelli has focused on Dominion’s proposal to build a third nuclear reactor at its North Anna complex using a commercially untested technology developed by General Electric and Hitachi. In correspondence with Dominion, Cuccinelli has surfaced details of the project that are either new or under-reported:

Ownership. Assuming Dominion makes the decision to pursue the project, it will own 88.4 percent of the facility, with the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative owning 11.6 percent.

Up-front costs. The project will incur $500 million in preliminary engineering, design and regulatory costs before construction even begins. The Department of Energy will pay 50 percent, Dominion will pay $60 million net, while GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy and its subcontractors will fund the balance.

Those costs, according to Dominion spokesman Bill Byrd, include:

  • Preparation of the Combined Operating License application, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fees for review of the application.

  • Submittal of GE’s application for design certification of its Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) design, and the review fees for that application. The reactor design must be approved for Dominion’s project to be licensed.
  • Detailed engineering of the ESBWR design that will be used to produce the construction drawings needed to build the plant.
  • Detailed engineering for specific features of the North Anna site, such as cooling tower design.
  • Economic and financial risk analyses to determine the feasibility of construction.
Bacon’s bottom line: There are significant costs associated with being the first guy to try out a new technology like GE-Hitachi’s design for cheaper, safer nuclear power generation. Luckily for Virginia electric rate payers, the DOE and the developers of that technology are paying for nearly 90 percent of the cost of working through a lot of those issues. … On the other hand, I can see why proponents of renewable fuels call for tax breaks and subsidies. Nuclear power, they say, is heavily subsidized, too, so there’s no level playing field.

(Heads up: If you’re interested in the future of nuclear energy in Virginia, don’t miss the upcoming column by Peter Galuszka in the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

6 responses to “North Anna 3: $500 Million Before Construction Even Begins”

  1. John Ling Avatar
    John Ling

    I hope Dominion Power (we all still think of them as VEPCO) has better management on the job than they did when they first built North Anna. Towards the end of the Construction they dug a hole and shoveled millions of dollars worth of tools and equipment into it and buried it. Why? Because they knew the SCC would rubber stamp any rate increase they put in front of them. While Dominion has been better run than VEPCO and the SCC isn’t as bad as it was, it will deserve some scrutiny to make sure we don’t see the nonsense that went on the first time they built North Anna.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    we’re making a 50-100 year decision here.

    are we so convinced that wind/solar/tide technology will not overcome their current disadvantages in that timeframe?

    If you were a potential investor of nuclear, would there be a concern that newer, more potent green technologies might render Nukes obsolete?

    Hasn’t the “market” already spoken in a sense because – would companies like Dominion be pursuing these permits with their own investors money?

    Essentially what we’ve done by providing subsidies to Nuke Power, is that we’ve made a public policy decision that Nukes will be “better” than Green for the next 50-100 years.

    Is this a good decision?

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “are we so convinced that wind/solar/tide technology will not overcome their current disadvantages in that timeframe?”

    Sounds like me talking.

    One of the biggest stock maret gainers this year was an alternative energy company, gaining over 700%. Had you invested in that, you could probably take the profits and bought your own solar system.

    ‘Essentially what we’ve done by providing subsidies to Nuke Power, is that we’ve made a public policy decision that Nukes will be “better” than Green for the next 50-100 years.’

    I’m afraid you are correct, even thogh I also think that renewable power has a long, long way to go, before it is really mainstream.

    RH

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well we agree!

    but I think the technology “works”.

    Wind and solar produce reliable quantities of power – no contest.

    so it’s about money.

    Wind & Solar – in our highway and powerline rights-of-way are possible and realistic.

    Solar on tops and sides of buildings are possible.

    Solar panels over top of parking lots would not only provide power but shield impervious surfaces from harmful runoff.

    increased efficiency standards and smart meters could soften the financial impacts of higher prices.

    we’re not investing in solar and wind because the current owners and operators of conventional power would lose their cash cows and that’s the bottom line.

    As long as the power companies make money selling MORE power they will never agree to sell LESS.

    and we are thoroughly turnip-truck fodder for meekly standing by while they pilfer our wallets AND further damage the environment.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Just to make things clear – I support Nukes over coal and primarily as a bridge technology to get to Green.

    but..the power companies are like Detroit was when Toyota came along with econo-boxes.

    They laughed at them..they had NO intention of producing more efficient vehicles… until they were forced to.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we’re not investing in solar and wind because the current owners and operators of conventional power would lose their cash cows and that’s the bottom line.”

    Or they might still have their cash cows, and the consumer would wind up footing the bill for the policies that force investment in technology that produces less power at a higher cost.

    There is nothing stopping anyone who really wants solar from having it, and taking himself off the grid.

    Except money.

    And the fact that the grid is part of what makes solar practical, otherwise the solar user also has to provide his own peak power, and we know what that costs.

    Comparing solar to Toyotas econo boxes is a bad analogy: a better one might be a Sherman Tank. If even Toyota had tried to break in with something MORE expensive, where would they be? They were able to sell the Lexus only after the reliability of their vehicles was proven.

    And remember, that stock price was driven not by profits, but by speculators. Green speculators, maybe, but speculators just the same.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More