Proposed Nukes in FL=$1000s in Rate Hikes! yikes!

I’ve known for years that nuclear power is really expensive, and as a resident of Tennessee who gets my electricity from Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), I’m aware of and quite frustrated by their $22+ billion debt for past nuclear reactors, many of which were not even completed. I day dream about what TVA would look like if even half of this was instead invested in conservation, efficiency and renewable energy programs–I’m thinking cleaner air, cleaner & cooler water, lower bills. But, until last week, I had not seen a break down of the direct impact of constructing new nuclear reactors on electric rates for consumers. I have included a chart from the Florida Public Service Commission staff memo issued on July 2, 2008 listing the projected monthly bill increase for the next 9 years of the construction of two 1000 MW reactors by Progress Energy in Levy County, Florida. This is crazy! Progress Energy’s electric ratepayers in Florida would end up paying an additional $1640 in the next seven years before the plant is even online and producing electricity and then $789 in the next two years as the 2 plants come online. That’s more than $2400 per customer on average over nine years.

The total estimate for the two reactors is around $17 billion!! Imagine if we invested even half of this into energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of new nuclear energy. This cost is in addition to over $18 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear power that Congress approved in late 2007, since Wall Street won’t invest in new nukes. Dollar for dollar energy efficiency and renewables give us much higher carbon emissions reductions much quicker than new nuclear power and in the long term the sun, the wind and not using energy are FREE! (see chart at the end of this post) meaning that rate payers’ bills will more likely stay the same or even drop versus projections like these. To see the clean energy future that we want, we must stop these new plants and shift these HUGE investments (or even half of these investments, saving the rest) to clean, renewable energies creating green jobs, cleaner air, cleaner water and no nuclear waste! Sign the Power Vote pledge for a future of no coal, no nukes and green jobs and get more involved in the fights against these expensive and dirty plants.

Check out this chart from Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh called “The Nuclear Illusion” about CO2 emissions displaces by dollar spent on different technologies.

About Liz

While at the University of North Carolina, Liz led one of the first successful campus renewable energy campaigns in the southeast and won the Morris K. Udall scholarship in both 2002 & 2003. She organized the first Southeast Student Renewable Energy Conference April 2-4, 2004, to engage other Southern schools beyond UNC in energy and climate work. In the summer of 2004 she became a co-founding member of Energy Action Coalition, which she has been actively involved with since then. She co-chaired the Energy Action Coalition Steering Committee for 2 years and is Executive Director of the Southern Energy Network, which works with students in the Southeast on clean energy and climate initiatives as part of Energy Action Coalition's Campus Climate Challenge. In late fall 2005, she attended the UN Climate Negotiations in Montreal and helped start www.itsgettinghotinhere.org . In 2008, she joined the board of the Highlander Research and Education Center (www.highlandercenter.org).

5 Responses to “Proposed Nukes in FL=$1000s in Rate Hikes! yikes!”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Mattie Reitman Jul 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Some astounding numbers no doubt. Seems we’ve got some work to do.
2 Michael Stuart Jul 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

California abandoned nuclear construction in favor of renewables. How does your electric bill compare (in cost per KW-hr) to that of your California counterparts?

Interestingly enough, even after years of pouring rate-payer money into wind farms and failed solar projects, California is the largest importer of electricity in the nation - over 20% from outside the state, which by the way is mostly coal power.

The Southeastern United States enjoys the lowest electricity rates in the nation. Is it any coincidence that they also are heavily invested in nuclear?

Furthermore, I would question the data provided by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh. Currently, nuclear power is by far the largest contributor to GHG offsets - currently at about 800 million tons of CO2 per year avoided by the 104 operating reactors in the United States. That’s 74% of the low-carbon energy in the entire nation. There is no large wind project that even comes close to the GHG benefit that a single nuclear reactor provides.
3 R Margolis Jul 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Rather than comment on nuclear directly, I’d like to share my experience with utility regulator staff: they are typically skeptical of nuclear. Most that I had talked to in the past did not like the “lumpiness” of nuclear (i.e., high capital cost). What this tells me of the PSCC decision is that the staff must have been convinced that nuclear would still have a lower per kwh cost than renewables + energy storage.
4 FLMom Sep 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am

Say No to Progress Energy’s Rate Hike Request
http://www.floodthelines.com/sayno2progressenergy/
Enough is Enough!
5 Jason Sep 17th, 2008 at 2:57 am

Here is another source that shows the story in a different light:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/08/25/daily40.html?ana=from_rss

So the rate hike is not exclusively for nuclear facilities, and Florida is one of the few states that get a significant 10% of its electricity from oil. Though there are expansions for coal and coal emission control, it is unknown at this time if the oil fired plants or coal would be reduced in respect to new nuclear plants coming online.

The Lovins chart is misleading. It doesn’t explain the basis for displacement. Name-plate capacity ratings for wind turbines are never met and hover around 25%. Nuclear has an average of 90% capacity rating. Power delivered from nuclear will be more reliable and less costly because of that great difference in capacity factor. If a 31% rate hike charges the amount this post claims, this is still far cheaper for the average consumer than installing a $15,000 solar array.

Wall St. does invest in nukes. All the major energy companies with nuclear holdings can be bought and sold on the street. It happens everyday.

Nuclear power in the USA has a better industrial safety than the wind power industry.