Group items tagged

The cost of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's (PBMR's) demonstration plant and pilot fuel plant had almost doubled to R31-billion as a result of inflation and higher materials costs, company chief executive Jaco Kriek said last week. Kriek said the demonstration reactor, which would generate 200 megawatts of heat and 80MW of electricity, was now expected to be commissioned by 2018 - four years later than previously expected. The plant has yet to receive environmental clearance.

The cost of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's (PBMR's) demonstration plant and pilot fuel plant had almost doubled to R31-billion as a result of inflation and higher materials costs, company chief executive Jaco Kriek said last week. Kriek said the demonstration reactor, which would generate 200 megawatts of heat and 80MW of electricity, was now expected to be commissioned by 2018 - four years later than previously expected. The plant has yet to receive environmental clearance.

The cost of Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's (PBMR's) demonstration plant and pilot fuel plant had almost doubled to R31-billion as a result of inflation and higher materials costs, company chief executive Jaco Kriek said last week. Kriek said the demonstration reactor, which would generate 200 megawatts of heat and 80MW of electricity, was now expected to be commissioned by 2018 - four years later than previously expected. The plant has yet to receive environmental clearance.

An internal U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) study details how managers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) shifted costs to understate total spending on the controversial National Ignition Facility (NIF) mega-laser. The previously secret document, released today by the nuclear watchdog group Tri-Valley CAREs, pegs the current hidden costs of NIF at $80 million annually. "Livermore Lab is systematically disguising the true costs of the NIF," charged Tri-Valley CAREs' executive director, Marylia Kelley. "When calculated over the life of the project, these hidden costs total more than $2 billion." Kelley continued, "This illegal scheme circumvents the United States Congress, which sets NIF's budget each year, and violates our nation's most basic federal contracting laws." According to the report by the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Field Financial Management (OFFM), Livermore Lab's practice of assigning NIF overhead expenses to other Lab programs violates Public Law 100-679 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). This law is an integral part of the structure set up to regulate government contracts. Some of the NIF fee reductions date back to 2001. The OFFM investigators noted that the misleading cost accounting, "materially misstates the actual costs by LLNL for the NIF/National Ignition Campaign... and may result in an undercapitalization of the NIF/NIC's total project costs."

An internal U.S. Dept. of Energy (DOE) study details how managers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) shifted costs to understate total spending on the controversial National Ignition Facility (NIF) mega-laser. The previously secret document, released today by the nuclear watchdog group Tri-Valley CAREs, pegs the current hidden costs of NIF at $80 million annually. "Livermore Lab is systematically disguising the true costs of the NIF," charged Tri-Valley CAREs' executive director, Marylia Kelley. "When calculated over the life of the project, these hidden costs total more than $2 billion." Kelley continued, "This illegal scheme circumvents the United States Congress, which sets NIF's budget each year, and violates our nation's most basic federal contracting laws." According to the report by the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Field Financial Management (OFFM), Livermore Lab's practice of assigning NIF overhead expenses to other Lab programs violates Public Law 100-679 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). This law is an integral part of the structure set up to regulate government contracts. Some of the NIF fee reductions date back to 2001. The OFFM investigators noted that the misleading cost accounting, "materially misstates the actual costs by LLNL for the NIF/National Ignition Campaign... and may result in an undercapitalization of the NIF/NIC's total project costs."

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Brown's Ferry nuclear reactor the subject of audit TVA was overbilled more than $1 million on work done to restart its Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 reactor, according to TVA's Office of Inspector General. Advertisement About $2.8 million in subcontractor costs billed to TVA by a contractor was audited and the preliminary review "caused us to have concerns that certain costs that were billed may have also been billed to TVA under other contracts," according to an emailed statement from the office. "In summary, we found TVA had been overbilled $1,075,020 including (1) $174,912 of unsupported and ineligible labor and per diem costs (2) $621,428 of unsupported and ineligible equipment costs (3) $199,180 of unsupported material costs. and (4) $79,500 of overstated task costs."

Brown's Ferry nuclear reactor the subject of audit TVA was overbilled more than $1 million on work done to restart its Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 reactor, according to TVA's Office of Inspector General. Advertisement About $2.8 million in subcontractor costs billed to TVA by a contractor was audited and the preliminary review "caused us to have concerns that certain costs that were billed may have also been billed to TVA under other contracts," according to an emailed statement from the office. "In summary, we found TVA had been overbilled $1,075,020 including (1) $174,912 of unsupported and ineligible labor and per diem costs (2) $621,428 of unsupported and ineligible equipment costs (3) $199,180 of unsupported material costs. and (4) $79,500 of overstated task costs."

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change - even under the most favourable circumstances. The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

Florida Power & Light customers will pay nearly $63 million next year to cover the cost of planning two nuclear plant expansions. That's 67 cents per month in nuclear costs for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours used, but it's $1.60 less per month for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours than customers paid this year for those costs, FPL officials said. Next year will be the second that FPL customers have paid for planning costs for the expansions. Last year, about $220 million was approved for this year. The Public Service Commission voted 3 to 1 on Friday to pass the costs to customers next year. During the meeting, some commissioners praised nuclear power as a cheap energy source that reduces the state's greenhouse gas emissions and its dependence on oil.

Florida Power & Light customers will pay nearly $63 million next year to cover the cost of planning two nuclear plant expansions. That's 67 cents per month in nuclear costs for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours used, but it's $1.60 less per month for the first 1,000 kilowatt hours than customers paid this year for those costs, FPL officials said. Next year will be the second that FPL customers have paid for planning costs for the expansions. Last year, about $220 million was approved for this year. The Public Service Commission voted 3 to 1 on Friday to pass the costs to customers next year. During the meeting, some commissioners praised nuclear power as a cheap energy source that reduces the state's greenhouse gas emissions and its dependence on oil.

Improper accounting practices have hidden the true cost of the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to the tune of $80 million in this fiscal year alone, according to a leaked report. Critics say this fiscal sleight of hand means the facility's already-huge cost - $3.5 billion to $4 billion overall, already three times its original estimated cost, and almost a half-billion dollars this fiscal year - has been significantly lowballed. Construction began in 1997 on the NIF, which uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point of nuclear fusion; scientists hope it will be the first in the world to achieve "ignition," producing more energy than was put in to start the reaction, ultimately providing a new source of clean, renewable energy. After years of delays and rampant cost overruns, it was finished in March and dedicated in May to great fanfare. The NIF already eats up about a quarter of the Livermore Lab's budget. But a report prepared in October by the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Field Financial Management - leaked to Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), which in turn provided it to this newspaper - says managers have hidden the NIF's true costs by making other parts of the Livermore Lab pick up the tab. Besides weapons research, the lab's many programs include research in environmental science,

Improper accounting practices have hidden the true cost of the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to the tune of $80 million in this fiscal year alone, according to a leaked report. Critics say this fiscal sleight of hand means the facility's already-huge cost - $3.5 billion to $4 billion overall, already three times its original estimated cost, and almost a half-billion dollars this fiscal year - has been significantly lowballed. Construction began in 1997 on the NIF, which uses powerful lasers to heat and compress a small amount of hydrogen fuel to the point of nuclear fusion; scientists hope it will be the first in the world to achieve "ignition," producing more energy than was put in to start the reaction, ultimately providing a new source of clean, renewable energy. After years of delays and rampant cost overruns, it was finished in March and dedicated in May to great fanfare. The NIF already eats up about a quarter of the Livermore Lab's budget. But a report prepared in October by the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Field Financial Management - leaked to Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), which in turn provided it to this newspaper - says managers have hidden the NIF's true costs by making other parts of the Livermore Lab pick up the tab. Besides weapons research, the lab's many programs include research in environmental science,

A former federal energy regulator, environmentalists and others asked Florida leaders today to delay their pursuit of nuclear power in light of lower electricity demand and the rising costs of building new reactors. A Southern Alliance for Clean Energy meeting on the issue comes days before the Public Service Commission will vote on whether FPL and Progress Energy can pass to customers the incremental planning costs of four new nuclear reactors that are estimated to cost up to $35 billion and are awaiting state and federal approvals. Utilities have pushed for expanding nuclear energy because once reactors are built, they provide a relatively cheap, long-term source of energy that doesn't release greenhouse gases and also saves customers money by protecting them from fluctuating fuel costs. Nuclear energy makes up a fifth of the power produced by FPL at a fraction of the cost of other power sources.

A former federal energy regulator, environmentalists and others asked Florida leaders today to delay their pursuit of nuclear power in light of lower electricity demand and the rising costs of building new reactors. A Southern Alliance for Clean Energy meeting on the issue comes days before the Public Service Commission will vote on whether FPL and Progress Energy can pass to customers the incremental planning costs of four new nuclear reactors that are estimated to cost up to $35 billion and are awaiting state and federal approvals. Utilities have pushed for expanding nuclear energy because once reactors are built, they provide a relatively cheap, long-term source of energy that doesn't release greenhouse gases and also saves customers money by protecting them from fluctuating fuel costs. Nuclear energy makes up a fifth of the power produced by FPL at a fraction of the cost of other power sources.

--Combination of Efficiency and Renewables Much More Economical Than New Nuclear Reactors With Skyrocketing Construction Costs; 'Low Balling' of Cost Estimates Imperils 'Nuclear Renaissance,' Just as Runaway Costs Sank the 'Great Bandwagon Market' of 1970s WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Titled "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," Cooper's analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade -- a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has a "Low-cost Clean Energy Plan" being marketed to people with substandard reading skills. His press release claims his plan to build 100 nuclear power plants will "lower utility bills," though it "should not add to the federal budget since ratepayers will pay for building the plants." In other words, the people in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere who get their electricity from coal-fired power plants should see their utility bills skyrocket. Here's a reality check on Alexander's flimflam. The Republican plan proposes to double the level of U.S. nuclear energy generation in 20 years. How much would that cost? We currently have about 100,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity, and the cost of building a nuclear plant is about $7.5 million per megawatt, according to Moody's. So the cost would be about $750 billion. On a per megawatt basis, a nuclear plant costs five times as much to build and 10 times as much to operate as a natural gas plant. The $750 billion cost excludes the cost of shutting down the CO2 emitting coal-fired plants.

Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency. WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns. Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials.

Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials.

Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials.

Those who support nuclear energy claim it is inexpensive. The reason that they can claim that is that they only figure in the cost of generating the energy. If they figure in the cost of taking care of nuclear waste, then the cost is astronomical! But the developers only figure the cost of developing it and assume that the rest of us will pay the cost of 'disposing' of the waste. (It can't be disposed of.)

Costs would add up to $67 million next year Florida Power & Light Co. officials on Tuesday sought state approval to pass on the costs for expanding the utility's nuclear power plants to consumers - a $67 million cost next year. At the first of three Public Service Commission hearings in Tallahassee on the proposal, utility officials called the costs necessary and said nuclear power is key to Florida's future energy plans. FPL officials said the proposal would not add anything to customers' monthly bills. The addition translates to about 67 cents more per month for a typical customer, but FPL officials said overall nuclear power costs will be less next year than this year.

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

There's still nowhere to put that toxic waste Nuclear electricity is affordable and emission free People opposed to nuclear energy applications point to the high initial price tag of enormous nuclear generating facilities that can … read more provide enough reliable electricity for several million people; they often overlook the resulting low cost per unit of power when spread over that large market. There are 104 nuclear plants operating in the US today. Many of us who are old enough to remember the controversies surrounding their construction can remember how many times we were told that nuclear power plants are frighteningly expensive and that they always cost more than predicted. We even remember that electrical power prices often increased immediately after the plants went into operation due to the effect of adding those big, expensive plants into the utility rate base. What many people who consider "news" media to be their only information sources rarely understand, however, is that the 104 plants currently operating provide the US with 20% of its electric power at an average production cost of about 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. They also do not understand that after a few decades of operation and revenue production, the initial mortgages on those plants are largely paid off. The best information of all, which is not really "news" and does not get regularly published on the front page, is that the plants still have at least 20 years of life remaining during which they can produce emission free, low cost power. The companies that own the plants and their stock holders understand the economics pretty well; that is why 18 applications for 25 new plants have been turned into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission already with more in the pipeline. All of the used fuel - what some people call waste - is being carefully stored in a tiny corner of the existing sites, just waiting to be recycled into new fuel. It still contains 95% of its initial potential energy, but

E-mails between Toshiba Inc. and CPS Energy and also among CPS executives make clear that the utility knowingly understated the costs of nuclear expansion to the public. Over a period of months during which CPS officials were telling the public the price for expansion at the South Texas Project was $13 billion, executives knew Toshiba was projecting the cost to be at least $4 billion higher. The same e-mails demonstrate anxiety among CPS officials that NRG Energy - a publicly held corporation that is CPS's partner in the project - intended to reveal the inflated cost estimates. "I think your discussion of incomplete cost estimates in public in November is a major problem," the CPS vice president of power plant construction wrote to an NRG official.

E-mails between Toshiba Inc. and CPS Energy and also among CPS executives make clear that the utility knowingly understated the costs of nuclear expansion to the public. Over a period of months during which CPS officials were telling the public the price for expansion at the South Texas Project was $13 billion, executives knew Toshiba was projecting the cost to be at least $4 billion higher. The same e-mails demonstrate anxiety among CPS officials that NRG Energy - a publicly held corporation that is CPS's partner in the project - intended to reveal the inflated cost estimates. "I think your discussion of incomplete cost estimates in public in November is a major problem," the CPS vice president of power plant construction wrote to an NRG official.

CPS Energy has made two critical errors in their dealings on the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant: assuming that nuclear energy will be cheap and that the cost of alternatives is too high. This month, just two days before the San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the STP expansion, CPS announced that the cost estimate for the project had risen as much as $4 billion. That brought the cost of expanding the nuclear power plant to $17 billion - a $12 billion increase from NRG Energy's original estimate just last year of $5.4 billion. Cheaper and safer ways exist to meet the city's need for power. With the bond vote now pushed back until January, the City Council should take the time to get bids on alternative energy scenarios for San Antonio's new electric generation. This input would present the council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible.

CPS Energy has made two critical errors in their dealings on the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant: assuming that nuclear energy will be cheap and that the cost of alternatives is too high. This month, just two days before the San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the STP expansion, CPS announced that the cost estimate for the project had risen as much as $4 billion. That brought the cost of expanding the nuclear power plant to $17 billion - a $12 billion increase from NRG Energy's original estimate just last year of $5.4 billion. Cheaper and safer ways exist to meet the city's need for power. With the bond vote now pushed back until January, the City Council should take the time to get bids on alternative energy scenarios for San Antonio's new electric generation. This input would present the council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible.

Many people seem to be holding up nuclear power as the answer to our current energy crisis. I don't believe nuclear power is the answer for several reasons, with its high cost being the main reason. Nuclear power construction costs are huge. The costs and economic failure of nuclear power construction in the 1970s and 1980s were described by Forbes magazine as "the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business history, involving $100 billion in wasted investments and cost overruns, exceeded in magnitude only by the Vietnam War and the savings and loan crisis." These high costs are not just a thing of the past. Currently, Finland is constructing the Olkiluoto-3 reactor, which is at least 24 months behind schedule after 28 months, and at least 50 percent over budget. Maybe that is why, in 2007, new nuclear received no investment from private capital, whereas decentralized renewables worldwide received $71 billion.

A new report on nuclear energy costs may buzz-kill Colorado Republicans' push for the controversial power plants as an alternative to nonrenewable, carbon-laden oil, natural gas and coal. New nuclear power costs are triple current U.S. electricity rates, according to Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power. Those high costs are compounded by concerns that new plants could join the ranks of troubled assets and become enormous credit risks for energy firms, investors and government loan guarantors. The report, authored by leading power plant expert Craig A. Severance, is described as "one of the most detailed cost analyses publicly available" delivered by the sober realism of a certified public accountant: