Graphic courtesy of Fairewinds Associates

As reported by the Tampa Bay Times, Progess Energy has announced an indefinite suspension of the construction plans for two Toshiba-Westinghouse so-called "Advanced Passive 1000" (AP1000) atomic reactors targeted at the greenfield (no old reactors already there) site at Levy, Florida. That's the good news. The bad news is that Florida ratepayers are nonetheless locked into paying "advance" charges for the new reactors on their electricity bills month after month for years to come, even though the reactors may never get built. Such "Construction Work in Progress" charges are illegal in most states, although have been made legal in such states as Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia in an effort to grease the skids for new atomic reactor proposals, at ratepayer expense.

By the end of last year, Progress Energy's 1.6 million Florida ratepayers had already made $545 million in "advance" payments on their electricity bills toward the Levy new reactors, or an average of about $340 per person. Progress Energy fully intends to extract yet another $555 million from its ratepayers in the years ahead, or another $350 per person, whether or not the reactors actually get built and fired up.

The Levy new reactors have been a case study in cost overruns. As the article reports, Progress Energy first estimated in 2006 that a single AP1000 would cost as little as $4 billion. The very next year, the projected price tag had jumped to $10 billion per reactor. A year after that, Progress added a second new reactor to the proposal, and estimated the cost at a total of $17 billion. But last year, the price projection had reached $22 billion for the twin AP1000s.

The project has also been a case study in schedule delays. In 2006, Progress said its new reactor would fire up in 2016. By 2009, Progress admitted the opening date had slipped two years into the future, to 2018. By 2010, the opening date had retreated yet further, to 2021. Progress is now admitting that the project won't open till 2027, if at all.

Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates in Vermont and expert witness for an environmental coalition opposed to new AP1000s targeted throughout the Southeast, was quoted as saying "It's a dramatic strategy change (by Progress)...Now, it looks like they're retreating." Gundersen has identified a major safety flaw in the AP1000's supposedly "advanced, passive" design, which could actively pump hazardous radioactivity into the environment during an accident (see graphic, above).

Images such as this explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 were seared into the public mind

He concludes: "From a big picture perspective, Fukushima has had and is likely to continue to have an electrifying impact because it combines the most powerful message from TMI on cost escalation with the most powerful message from Chernobyl on the risk of nuclear reactors in a nation where it was not supposed to happen. And, it has taken place in an environment where information and images flow instantaneously around the world, so the public sees the drama and trauma of losing control of a nuclear reaction in real time."

As documented by Pat McNamara in Nuclear Genocide in Canada:

"Refurbishments

AECL's claim that the CANDU reactors would last for 40 years had no basis in fact. The first CANDU reactor was shut down in 1983 at Pickering A after 12 years of service for re-tubing. All four of the Pickering A reactors were re-tubed over the following 10 years. In 1997, all four Pickering A and three of Bruce Powers reactors were shut down for accumulated safety problems and lack of reliability. 

In 1999, Ontario Power Generation estimated it would cost $1.1 billion dollars and take three years to get all four Pickering A reactors back in service. Work commenced in 1999 to bring Unit 4 of Pickering 'A' back into service at a cost of $457 million. According to the Report of the Pickering 'A' Review Panel:
"In late September 2003, the first of four Pickering 'A' reactors returned to service. Compared with the plan approved by the Board of Directors of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in August 1999, the cost of Unit 4's return to service had almost tripled, and the return to service date has slipped by more than two years." 

The cost to repair Unit 4 was $800 million dollars over budget and two years late. They spent more money fixing one reactor than the original estimate for all four reactors. OPG went ahead and fixed Unit 1 at a cost of $1 billion. Due to the delays and massive cost overruns of the first two reactors, OPG decided to permanently shut down Units 3& 4.

Spending all this money on the reactors did little to improve their performance. In the summer of 2007, Units 1 & 4 were shut down for further repairs along with one other reactor from Pickering B. Combined with the two reactors on permanent shutdown, only three of the eight reactors were generating electricity all summer. 

By 2005, Bruce Power restarted reactors 3 and 4 at a cost of $720 million, which was more than double their initial estimate of $340 million. They have since announced plans to refurbish four reactors by 2013 at a cost of $5.2 billion. They started working on the first two reactors in 2007. This part of the project was supposed to cost $2.5 billion but it is already 25% over budget.

In 2008, Hydro-Quebec announced plans to refurbish Gentilly 2 at a cost of $1.9 billion. This was $700 million more than the estimate when the project was first proposed in 2004. 

In February 2009, AECL was given a $100 million subsidy to address cost overruns for refurbishments at Bruce Power and Point Lepreau. This came only two weeks after AECL was given $350 million dollars by the Canadian government as announced in the January 27, 2009 budget." (excerpt from Part 4, "Nuclear Costs to Date")

"Cost Overruns from Reactor Construction 

The last reactors built in Canada were at Darlington, 40 minutes east of Toronto. The four Darlington reactors were not completed until 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion, or more than $10 billion over budget. By 1998, the cost overruns from the 20 reactors in Ontario were the major contributor to Ontario Hydro's $35 billion debt. The utility was bankrupt and split into five separate components. The Canadian government forgave $20 billion of Ontario Hydro's debt (all Canadians are paying this bill) and Ontario electricity users are paying the balance with a surcharge on their electricity bills." (emphasis added)

SACE has clearly stated the irony

Decades ago, Vogtle originally planned to build four reactors, at an estimated cost of $660 million. This price tag skyrocketed to $8.87 billion for just the two currently operating reactors at Vogtle. Thus, rather than the original $165 million per reactor prediction, the actual costs came out to be $4.435 BILLION per reactor, a nearly 27-fold cost overrun! Thus, as stated by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, “Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.”  

Despite this shocking history, Vogtle plans to build two more reactors, at U.S. taxpayer and regional ratepayer financial risk, compliments of the Energy Dept. loan guarantee and the State of Georgia's allowing for Construction Work in Progress charges on electricity bills (illegal in most other states).