Westinghouse Bankruptcy and the Future of Nuclear Power

Click For Summary
Westinghouse's bankruptcy has raised concerns about the future of nuclear power, particularly in the U.S., where two unfinished plants are now in limbo. The nuclear industry requires significant upfront investment and long-term returns, making it challenging for startups to enter the market successfully. While some believe innovative companies like TerraPower, backed by Bill Gates, could revitalize the sector with new reactor designs, the overall landscape remains dominated by established players in countries like China, which are building reactors at lower costs. The aftermath of the Fukushima disaster has also led to a decline in nuclear energy support, particularly in Japan and Germany, where public trust has eroded. Despite these challenges, global nuclear capacity is still increasing, with over 60 reactors under construction worldwide.
  • #31
mheslep said:
I've not seen any satisfactory explanation for the amount of the cost increase reported for Summer, from $11 to $25B, for a 40% complete plant?
SCE&G and Santee apparently did a study. They've been dealing with delays and cost increases for years now, and perhaps the coup de grace is the Westinghouse bankruptcy.
I posted about a Power Magazine article on the Summer NPP in the Nuclear Power Thread. According to the Power Magazine article, the Summer project is 64% complete based on a statement from SCE&G.
http://www.powermag.com/vc-summer-project-64-complete-sceg-says/

http://www.powermag.com/scana-santee-cooper-abandon-v-c-summer-ap1000-units-citing-high-costs/
SCANA Corp. and Santee Cooper have ceased construction of Units 2 and 3 at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina.

The project owners said the decision, prompted by analysis of detailed schedule and cost data, would save customers nearly $7 billion. The project, which was about 64% complete, has been in limbo since key contractor Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in March.

The escalating costs have been in the news for a while now.
http://www.northaugustastar.com/news/utilities-to-cover-nuclear-plant-costs-v-c-summer-vogtle/article_05f1095c-160e-11e7-a2ea-2babdc28c02e.html

Part of the problem of estimating the cost will involve assumptions about idle workers and equipment and manhours needed to complete tasks.

Just prior to the beginning of construction, there was a concern that the available workforce had no prior experience in constructing nuclear power plants which have to be done under tighter quality control than non-nuclear plants. That makes changing the design costly, as well as remediating mistakes.

It was a costly mistake for Westinghouse to try to absorb CBI.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-cbi-idUSKBN17Z2AF
2016 - http://investors.cbi.com/news/press...ruction-Business-to-Westinghouse/default.aspx
2017 - http://investors.cbi.com/news/press...Position-in-Westinghouse-Lawsuit/default.aspx
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
I suspect there may be a domino effect, as the Vogtle plants are now the last two under construction in the US. That means every nuclear construction supervisor and regulator will have only Vogtle to focus on.
Ideally, this might mean the best and most experienced would now try 100% to help this project succeed. Realistically the more likely outcome is 'too many cooks'.
Nuclear may have a rebirth in this country, but it will need a very different form. We don't have the management or regulatory competency required to build big plants anymore. So the future if any is smaller units, probably centrally produced. Until that gets going, another long hiatus such as post TMI awaits us, at least imho.
 
  • #33
The situation with Westinghouse and the new AP1000 builds makes me wonder, if we can build nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines, why can't we be successful at building NPPs?
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #34
Astronuc said:
The situation with Westinghouse and the new AP1000 builds makes me wonder, if we can build nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines, why can't we be successful at building NPPs?
It's because ships are built in dedicated, purpose-built, high-tech factories and nuclear power plants are just buildings -- and any idiot can pour concrete or weld a pipe or lay a beam where a blueprint says to...except that they can't. If a contractor screws up on building an apartment building, the engineer complains and makes him fix it if it is important or just accepts it and docks their fee if it isn't, and that's the end of it. If a contractor screws up building a nuclear plant, it is quite literally a federal case. In the non-nuclear world, nobody really cares about bad concrete pours until after it fails and a panel falls out of the ceiling of your $30 billion tunnel in Boston and kills a family driving under it.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
and any idiot can pour concrete or weld a pipe or lay a beam where a blueprint says to...except that they can't.

or don't. Back in the beginning of NP in the 60's I read that a new plant under construction had to be stopped because the steel reinforcing rods where not be laid according to the schedule. The contractor unfamiliar with this new type of construction thought that it was way over designed at cut back on the steel.

In the case of the Scana plant they too did not follow the plans delaying the construction. What is it that they can't follow directions.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #36
Astronuc said:
The situation with Westinghouse and the new AP1000 builds makes me wonder, if we can build nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines, why can't we be successful at building NPPs?
US NRC. The NRC does not, can not, impose new requirements on US naval nuclear vessels after construction begins. Imagine 'aircraft impact' containment requirements imposed naval vessels.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
It's because ships are built in dedicated, purpose-built, high-tech factories and nuclear power plants are just buildings -- and any idiot can pour concrete or weld a pipe or lay a beam where a blueprint says to...except that they can't.
Which does not explain how China, S. Korea builds large reactors in building mode in five to seven years for a fraction of the cost of new US reactors, or how the US itself built them cheaply 40 years ago. Differences in labor costs does not explain all.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
mheslep said:
US NRC. The NRC does not, can not, impose new requirements on US naval nuclear vessels after construction begins. Imagine 'aircraft impact' containment requirements imposed naval vessels.

It's my understanding that the NRC has no jurisdiction over government controlled reactors or nuclear material.
 
  • #39
russ_watters said:
except that they can't...
One such problem is loss of skills, like the near miss Astro reported. Another occurred with the forging of the big RPV. Apparently, in big pieces the carbon concentration goes wrong on one end of the piece. The solution, going back to cannon age, was to lop off the end. This time, they forgot.
 
  • #40
mheslep said:
Which does not explain how China, S. Korea builds large reactors in building mode in five to seven years for a fraction of the cost of new US reactors, or how the US itself built them cheaply 40 years ago. Differences in labor costs does not explain all.
My response would probably be too political, though...
One such problem is loss of skills...
Yes, I think that is a lot of it.
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
My response would probably be too political, though...
upload_2017-8-6_15-36-44.png
 

Similar threads

What Are the Most Inspiring TED Talks on Physics and the Universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K