USA continues with nuclear power generation

Countries across the world are reflecting upon their civil nuclear power aspirations following in the wake of the Fukushima incident.  Strategic reviewing of the safety case for the generation of electricity by nuclear reactor is being undertaken, with a small number of Governments already deciding that the perceived risk attached to nuclear generated power being too great to continue to support.  Switzerland has determined to phase out nuclear power generation by 2034, in 2011 Germany shut down 8 nuclear reactors and recent actions by overseas companies have seriously dented the UK’s plans for new build power generation.

However the USA is continuing with its plans to expand the output capacity of its plants.  The Real Deal, South Florida Real Estate News, reports discussions there revolve around the costs of upgrading existing facilities and who will pay for it.  In Florida, Florida Power & Light’s plans to expand four of its nuclear reactors at its plants in St. Lucie, on Hutchinson Island north of Palm Beach and its Turkey Point plant in Miami-Dade County, south of Miami have seen the projected costs rise to $3 billion.  This reflects a significant rise in the original cost plan, roughly double the original estimated rise.  To help pay for this FPL is seeking $151 million in advance nuclear from customers in 2013, equating to a contribution of between $1.50 & $2.50 a month, a strategy yet to be ratified by the Florida Public Service Commission.

Interestingly, an FPL spokesman attributes some of the uplift in cost to increased requirements from the USA’s nuclear governance organisation, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This potentially reflect an even greater awareness of the worldwide focus on nuclear power generation and perhaps recognising the proximity of Turkey Point to Homestead, the town decimated by Hurricane Andrew in 1992.  FPL is also promoting the other beneficial effects of the upgrades, stating that it is estimated the upgrades will save customers a total of $3.8 billion in fossil fuel costs over the units' lifetimes, with $114 million in savings in the first full year of operation. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by an estimated 32 million tons.

As reported in the Palm Beach Post, Jerry Paul, a former reactor engineer and the former deputy administrator of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, "The low operating costs make nuclear the cheapest base load form of energy even though construction costs are higher. If you want cleaner air and you want cost effective electricity, nuclear power has to be part of the mix."

How big a part is clearly the question?