Halfway through the longest build in history

Halfway through the longest build in history
22 May 2009

Resumed construction has been under way at Watts Bar 2 for the last 18 months, but a visitor would find it hard to see much happening. Because construction of the plant was once abandoned, the current $2.49 billion project to turn it on by 2012 requires more assessment than actual building work. By Will Dalrymple

Construction of two 1200MWe Westinghouse PWR reactors at Watts Bar in southern Tennessee began in 1973, and carried on until 1985, when unit 1 was basically finished. That year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission raised many questions that needed to be answered before unit 1 could be licensed (and it took another 11 years until the plant started commercial operation). Plant owner and operator Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) created a plan to address these issues in 1985, but ceased construction on unit 2 at that time, having finished major structures, including pressure vessel, steam generators, pressurizer, turbines, condenser, generator and switchyard transformers, and having installed systems such as the reactor coolant piping.

In a 2007 letter to the NRC, TVA explained why it wanted to restart the project. It said that proceeding with the completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 is the best decision for TVA and the Tennessee Valley in terms of power supply, power price, generation mix, return on investment, use of existing assets, and avoidance of environmental impacts (by building new fossil-fuel plants, or siting new nuclear power stations elsewhere).

Although Watts Bar 2 is the first US nuclear construction project in almost 20 years, it is really closer to a restart than a new-build. In fact, TVA’s experience restarting Browns Ferry 1 in Alabama was a major influence. “With a rising demand for more baseload generation, TVA restarted Browns Ferry Nuclear unit 1 in June 2007, and the success of that recovery project helped us to understand what it would take to complete Watts Bar 2,” Ashok Bhatnagar, senior vice president of TVA’s nuclear generation development & construction, said recently.

Construction began on the three-reactor ...
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sc=2053037




Interesting insight into the decisionmaking processes behind the nuts and bolts of nuclear power.
Among other points I was struck by the claim made by plant engineers when the project was shut down - that the plant was 90% complete. It turns out it was only 60% complete.
Honest mistake, difference of opinion or bait and switch?
Any way you look at it the conflict between the claims then and now are troubling.

energy as Watts Bar will produce in a single building?

As usual, this is just selective attention, with a little bit of arsonists claiming to fight fires.

The reactor should have been completed in the 1970's and if it had, it would have saved hundreds of millions of tons of dumped dangerous fossil fuel waste.

However ignorance prevented this from happening.

Ignorance is having a tough time lately and the ignorant are whistling in the dark very loudly about their "nuclear is dead" meme, which is in fact, not looking so healthy itself.

As far as 90% vs 60% it is very easy to understand.

1) Major components were cannibalized from #2 to be used as spares in #1 (the plants were identical making parts matching a snap). Just because plant was 90% complete in 1985 doesn't mean that it is the same today after two decades of canibalization.

2) Requirements have changed in terms of material specs. Components not meeting code have to be replaced. This actually takes LONGER than just installed new components because old components need to be removed, then new components installed, then repairs to surrounding structure made.

3) Effect of age on manmade objects. The plant like any manmade machine wasn't designed to sit 25 years without any operation or maintenance. Some parts simply failed over the years and will need to be replaced. Try building a car to 90% complete and then let it sit in a garage for 25 years without operation or maintenance. Would you be surprised that it needs more than 10% work to get it running?

Only a small portion of the $2.5 billion is being spent on construction.



A significant amount of money is being spent on research (it is a 40 year old design which has been sitting for 25 years) and inspections to determine exactly what needs to be replaced, repaired, or modified.




I love Watts Bar #2. It is always ignored by the media. They use the term "no NEW reactor construction in 30 years". Watts Bar coming online in 2013 will be a huge step forward to clean, reliable, emission free power in this country.

Never let it be said that the nuclear industry sales force lacks imagination...

Also cannibalization of parts was only one source of degradation in completion percentile. It was all explained in the article.

Cannibalization + Regulatory Changes + Obsolete Components + Part failures due to decades of age = 30% of plant needs to be "rebuilt"

Many components are no longer to spec. Did you happen to not notice the quote on the removal of thousands of condenser tubes made of copper (stainless steel in now used to avoid corrosion) that were replaced?

All of the instrumentation had to be replaced. Many large components were damaged for decades of non-use.

Like I said take any manmade object (fighter plane, automobile, wind turbine) and let it sit for two decades without use and a substantial amount of components will need to be replaced.


The reality is in late 2012 or early 2013 Watts Bar will go critical. The first new criticality in decades.

just like any good salesman.

But actually you're not very good because you tend to rely far too much on ad libs that are obviously false.

Sorry if you can't read. That isn't my fault.

2013 - Mark your calender Kristopher. It will be the first of many new nuclear reactors in this country.

I know I've seen that number in quite a few places as the industry norm, too. So that means it is confirmation of the numbers you claim are "made up".

TVA spent years "unbuilding" and inspecting the existing plant.
They didn't just start slapping on new parts for 5 years and call it a win.

2013 - Watts Bar #2 will go critical
2016 - Vogtle #3 will go critical
2017 - Vogtle #4 will go critical
2018 - North Anna #3 will go critical

Obama pushing for loan guarantees for a dozen reactors.
26 reactors under planning/approval by the NRC.

You are on the wrong side of history man.

From the IEA:
Summary : The paper studies how the risks specific to a nuclear power investment in liberalised markets – regulatory, construction, operation and market risks – can be mitigated or transferred away from the plant investor through different contractual and organisational arrangements. It argues that at least for the first new reactors significant risk transfers onto governments, consumers, and, vendors are likely to be needed to make nuclear power attractive to investors in liberalised markets. These different types of risk allocations will in turn induce different investment financing choices. Four case studies of recent new nuclear projects illustrate the alternative consistent combinations of contractual, organization, and financial arrangements for new nuclear build depending on the industrial organisation, the market position of the company and the institutional environment prevailing in different countries. The most likely financing structure will likely be based on corporate financing or some form of hybrid arrangement backed by the balance sheet of one or a consortium of large vertically integrated companies.

2013 - Watts Bar #2 will go critical
2016 - Vogtle #3 will go critical
2017 - Vogtle #4 will go critical
2018 - North Anna #3 will go critical

After that...
Comanche Peak? South Texas? Turkey Point?



62% of American's now support nuclear energy.


Why would politicians care what 38% of Americans think (and of those how many really care enough to hold it against them politically)?
If Obama gets funding for 12 reactors are you going to hold it against him? Vote against him?


Wrong side of history man. Not just US, but Europe, China, Korea & Japan. Plus tons of new nuclear powers like UAE, Turkey, Vietnam.

***********************************************************************

Majority of Americans support nuclear power + President supports nuclear power.

Private funding has been obtained for nuclear power.
Govt funding has been secured for nuclear power.

All your boogeyman scare tactics are tired because they haven't changed in three decades.

Nuclear energy is happening. Just accept it.

The gallup poll is specifically worded to capture ambivalent feelings and energy security fears as a false reading on support for nuclear.

When asked specifically this is what you get; the same people who support nuclear also want more coal plants and more drilling for oil:



***********************************************************************

(After ^C ^V of course :evilgrin: )

Kinda like a member of KKK using a poll from 1940s to prove that today only a small % of Americans support civil rights amendment.

You love to use that Gallup poll because it's all-of-the-above wording (specifically "as one of the ways") captures the energy security anxiety, not the actual feeling towards nuclear power. When asked a forced choice yes/no, approve/oppose type of question the statistics have changed little over the past ten years. Support for nuclear goes up and down within about a 5 point range of 47% approval and the trend directly tracks concern over energy - people become fearful and they want the government to try everything.

In contrast, wind and other renewables have remained almost completely static at 91% approval plus/minus 1 point.