Login Profile Get News Updates
News
Front Page
Local News
LifeStyles
Sports
Obituaries
Letters
Columns
Photo Gallery
Archive
Obit Archives
Services
Forms
Advertiser Index
Roll Call
Contact Us
About Us
Subscription Order
Advertising
Classifieds
Classified Display Ads
Shopping Page
Classified Order
Local Links
Elected Officials
City of Gaffney
Chamber of Commerce
Litter Patrol
E-mail Us
Was is appropriate for President Obama to bow to the emperor of Japan?
View results
Local News November 5, 2008  RSS feed

Price tag for Duke's proposed nuclear plant rises to $11 billion

Almost double the estimate of three years ago
By TIM GULLA Ledger Staff Writer tim@gaffneyledger.com

Just like plumes of steam from a cooling tower, the price tag on the proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Power Plant in McKowns Mountain is rising.

New cost estimates for the proposed nuclear plant, included in a recent filing by Duke Energy with regulators, now peg the plant's construction costs at about $11 billion — almost double the estimate that had been talked about just three years ago.

While the estimated price tag may raise eyebrows it wasn't a shock to Duke officials.

"Until you get in, look at contract costs and commodity costs, it's hard to get a hard number," said George Acker, a business relations manager at Duke Energy. "This just represents a much clearer picture than what we originally looked at."

The new cost estimate, which resulted from outside consultants looking at the plans, better reflects today's higher prices for the voluminous quantities of steel and concrete, as well as contracted work, needed for the massive construction project, Acker said.

And the numbers can change even more, depending on the direction of global commodity prices in the future.

Acker said Duke expected the number to rise from initial estimates and a higher price tag alone won't derail the project as it makes its way through a lengthy and complex approval process.

While nuclear energy plants have higher up-front construction costs, Acker said they remain the most economical because of lower fuel costs during their life spans.

Coal plants also are facing rising construction costs and add future uncertainty because of regulations on carbon emissions. Natural gas prices, meanwhile, have been fluctuating widely making that fuel source a costly long-term option despite the lower construction costs of a gas-fueled plant.