US Nuclear Comeback Stalls As Two Reactors Are Abandoned (theaustralian.com.au)

Brad Plumer reports via The New York Times (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): In a major blow to the future of nuclear power in the United States, two South Carolina utilities said on Monday that they would abandon two unfinished nuclear reactors in the state, putting an end to a project that was once expected to showcase advanced nuclear technology but has since been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built. The cancellation means there are just two new nuclear units being built in the country -- both in Georgia -- while more than a dozen older nuclear plants are being retired in the face of low natural gas prices. Originally scheduled to come online by 2018, the V.C. Summer nuclear project in South Carolina had been plagued by disputes with regulators and numerous construction problems. This year, utility officials estimated that the reactors would not begin generating electricity before 2021 and could cost as much as $25 billion -- more than twice the initial $11.5 billion estimate. The utilities also struggled with an energy landscape that had changed dramatically since the large reactors were proposed in 2007. Demand for electricity has plateaued nationwide as a result of major improvements in energy efficiency, weakening the case for massive new power plants. And a glut of cheap natural gas from the hydraulic fracturing boom has given states a low-cost energy alternative. Facing those pressures, the two owners of the project, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper, announced they would halt construction rather than saddle customers with additional costs.

Comments

Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980

[Trax3001BBS]

        "At the beginning of the 1980s, only one of the five WPPSS plants was nearing completion. By this time, nuclear power had been reexamined and was found to not be as clean as was originally thought. Some cities boycotted nuclear power from the plants before the facilities were even up and running. The cost overruns reached the point where more than $24 billion would be required to complete the work, but recouping funds would be a tricky matter because of less-than-promising sales. Construction halted on all but the near-completed second plant; the first plant was once again being redesigned. WPPSS was forced to default on $2.25 billion worth of municipal bonds."

        http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/0...

Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980

[Trax3001BBS]

        http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/0...

Man talk of the wrong link, the first paste tried to take one to facebook Correct link: http://www.investopedia.com/as...

Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980

[jbengt]

Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates.

Not in my experience. Illinois has had some of the largest percent of electrical power as nuclear, but has had above average rates, for residential customers like me, at least.
state-by-state rates
state-by-state fuel types

Re:Lost 2 out of three here as well - 1980

[mysticgoat]

They have been running reliably for 40 years and have produced more clean power than solar and wind will for a long, long time.

It is a horse barn truism that you cannot call the stable clean if for the last forty years you've been shovelling the manure into a stall rather than hauling it away. In the US spent fuel rods, the hottest type of nuclear waste, are stored in pools on site because so far there is no place to haul them to. Any knowledgeable prospective buyer of a horse ranch would want to see the costs of manure disposal show up in the accounting books and would turn away if told that there are no costs. But the nuclear industry doesn't track the costs of disposing of its waste, arguing that those costs belong to the future so we ain't going to account for them today.

To come to the point, parent post is so much horse shit. It perpetuates the myths that nuclear power is clean and cheap, when in reality it is "clean" only in the sense that the industry is not yet doing the cleanup that has to be done sometime. Putting off costs until tomorrow is a cute accounting trick, but it doesn't reduce the total cost.

In summary, to use the technical language of nuclear industry marketeers, the argument presented in parent post is so much horse shit.

Re:Terrible news

[Bongo]

To follow the analogy, today we have the added issue of many people preferring cheap sustainable clean safe beautiful air balloons.
And some people questioning this saying, but how will you move 2 million passengers a year in air balloons?
And other people saying, we'll make efficiency savings, so it isn't a problem.

Re:Meanwhile in Russia...

[AmiMoJo]

Russia has the world's only power-generating fast-neutron reactor (BN-800) and is preparing to build the second generation (BN-1200) of this reactor type.

From Wikipedia:

"In 2015, after several minor delays, problems at the recently completed BN-800 indicated a redesign was needed. Construction of the BN-1200 was put on "indefinite hold",[1] and Rosenergoatom has stated that no decision to continue will be made before 2019."

That's why people aren't rushing to build these things. They are wonderful until someone notices that some unforeseen design flaw needs to be rectified, or some unforeseen stupidity mode comes to light, and suddenly it's delayed for a decade and billions are added to the price.

Deaths from Energy Accidents

[archer, the]

You can check the number of deaths from energy accidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Below are some entries, in deaths per PWh:

Coal (China): 170,000
Coal (US): 10,000
Oil: 36,000
Natural Gas: 4,000
Solar: 440
Wind: 150
Hydro (non-US): 1,400
Hydro (US): 5
Nuclear(non-US): 90
Nuclear(US): 0.01