Nuclear Energy Debate Is Central to the Duke-Progress Merger

Nuclear Energy Debate Is Central to the Duke-Progress Merger

by | published January 18th, 2011

The pending mega-merger between Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK) and Progress Energy Inc. (NYSE:PGN) is going to change some basic assumptions about the power generation sector. This new union will create the largest utility in the U.S., and that is going to have an impact on how electricity is generated and transmitted.

For one thing, there is likely to be a renewed move to develop nuclear energy capacity and to make it a utility-friendly option.

Both companies currently have reactors. Both are based in North Carolina and have a heavy presence in the region. That means the Carolinas will almost certainly see additional development in the sector from the newly formed company.

That is going to place the renewed nuclear debate squarely in the middle of this year-long merging process.

Increasing Nuclear Reliance Cuts Both Ways

Nuclear power is returning to favor, but it also has been the laggard sourcing for electricity. The renewable and non-fossil-fuel base is attractive, but there are major drawbacks, too, like the inordinate time and expense needed to bring a reactor on-line.

Both DUK and PGN are infrastructure majors. As such, they are not into the micro nuclear applications (see “This Mini Energy Revolution Is A Giant Profit Opportunity,” April 19, 2010). These are mainframe players.

While the size element provides substantial improvements to efficiency (to say nothing of the corporate financing advantages), it will also mean higher utility bills for consumers during the decade-long process of building reactors, bringing them into service, and recouping the significant front-loaded expenses.

Both CEOs – flamboyant Jim Rogers at Duke and Bill Johnson at Progress – have said the new giant will have no choice but to expand on the nuclear front. Even the sites are already known. Further, the CEOs are committed to changing North Carolina law, thereby allowing power companies rate increases without having to go through a lengthy series of public hearings and oversight proceedings.

The legislative obstacle is a significant concern for both the proponents and opponents of increasing the reliance upon nuclear power.

Currently, in North Carolina, utilities can request a rate increase to cover expenses for each year a facility is under construction. Yet this often leads to nasty public hearings and considerable public relations concerns.

A company could opt to wait until the plant is operating to start to recoup costs, but that is hardly possible in the 10 years or more it takes for a reactor to begin a return on investment. It would mean having to carry heavy interest payments throughout the construction process.

Critics maintain that allowing a streamlined process for annual recovery would prompt utilities to pass on the risk of nuclear expansion to their consumers. They also happen to have some history on their side…

A Problematic Past

The two sites where the new reactors would be built are themselves part of the controversy.

Each site was initially set to have several reactors each. They both ended up being primary examples of the costly mistakes that plagued the industry over 20 years ago.

Progress’ Shearon Harris site, southwest of Raleigh, was originally designed to house four reactors at a projected total cost of $1.1 billion. It ended up with just one reactor at a cost of $3.9 billion.

Duke’s William Lee site is in Gaffney, South Carolina, 50 miles west of Charlotte. It was designed for three reactors, but never developed, apparently due to a severe miscalculation in cost estimate – it started at $6 billion and was revised up to $11 billion after less than a year. Yet Duke later raised rates to recover about one-third of the $600 million it had spent – despite customers receiving no advantage from the project.

Then again, both Duke and Progress have less-than-stellar records with the reactors they do have. According to data compiled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, both companies fall into the “average” category nationwide.

Duke’s Catawba nuclear plant south of Charlotte is one of the best-performing anywhere. But its Oconee plant in South Carolina has the worst performance scores of any reactor in the country, spending upwards of 70% of the time over the last decade dealing with performance problems. And PGN reactors have had consistent problems.

Making Nuclear Power More Utility-Friendly

Nonetheless, Duke and Progress are likely to meet a receptive North Carolina state legislature in their drive to make nuclear procedures more utility-friendly.

South Carolina has already obliged, with provisions for faster rate increases for nuclear expansion, while Progress is also benefiting from a similar move in Florida.

Progress CEO Johnson has made it very clear how important these legal changes are to the projects. He was blunt last week during a meeting of newspaper editors: no regulatory changes, no ability to raise capital; no capital, no projects. (Johnson will be the CEO of the new Duke after the merger.)

Yet even success on the legislative front may not be enough.

Projected costs are so high to develop the two sites (well in excess of $20 billion) that Duke would need to bring in a new outside partner just to fund it. Additionally, both companies acknowledge that a difficulty in estimating future electricity needs will create another problem in justifying the huge expense of nuclear projects.

However, one element working in their favor is the rapid aging of the power production infrastructure in the Carolinas. Much of this is coal-fired and has about 20 years left (at best). With new regulations on emissions coming next year, some of the plants are slated for ever-earlier retirement. (See “Two Non-Carbon Regulations About to Rock the Coal Sector,” October 29, 2010).

This state of affairs demands attention to replacement capacity well in advance of most coal-fired plants coming off-line.

And nuclear is the preferred option for the new mega-Duke.

What happens in the Carolinas, therefore, will tell us much about how genuine a nuclear response to a rising power issue is likely to be elsewhere.



Please Note: Kent cannot respond to your comments and questions directly. But he can address them in future alerts... so keep an eye on your inbox. If you have a question about your subscription, please email us directly at

  1. fallingman
    January 18th, 2011 at 10:04 | #1

    Dr. Moors is apparently not that familiar with nuclear operations in the U.S. That’s not really a criticism. He’s an oil guy, after all. Those of us who HAVE worked extensively with troubled nuclear plants around the country wish they could be as good as Duke’s and Progress Energy’s plants.

    I live in Duke’s territory. Bring on the nukes…now. We’re way behind the curve in the U.S. and we’d better get serious about nuclear or we’ll be at the back of the line when it comes to securing talent to build and run these plants and the fuel to power them.

    The corporatist aspects of the the loan guarantees disturbs me, but we’re at a point where we either get serious about nuclear or we decide to burn fossil fuels.

  2. Mike Fanning
    January 18th, 2011 at 10:21 | #2

    Dr. Moors,
    Since the US has no coherent, organized energy policy concerning the development of nuclear power, I would like your comments on how the US should develop nuclear capacity in the right way and whether there is a way to profit from this trend.

    For example, I have read some reports that say the future of nuclear power should rely heavily on small plants, like those on US Navy ships, where the technology is already developed and the risks/costs are greatly reduced. If it takes ten years to build a big plant, incurring usual cost overruns, why not start to fill in with a proven technology that states can be comfortable in developing?

    Thanks for your work,
    Mike Fanning, subscriber

  3. archivesDave
    January 18th, 2011 at 10:42 | #3

    Killing two birds with one stone:
    Combining nuclear energy and desalination:
    Seems like a slam dunk!
    Would appreciate your take on the state of this progress Kent….

  4. Mike Robertson
    January 18th, 2011 at 11:23 | #4

    Dr. Moors It seems to me that long term, we need to develop and deploy thorium based nuclear reactors. They promise to be much more attractive than uranium based reactors – greatly reduced construction costs, lower fuel costs, lower operating costs , minimal waste disposal costs. The Chinese, Indian and Russian governments are apparently moving forward on thorium reactors but the US is dragging its feet. Can you comment on the current state of thorium reactor developments?

    Mike Robertson, subscriber

    January 18th, 2011 at 11:30 | #5

    dear Dr. Moors,
    as you no doubt are aware gas always has to be kept under pressure-from wellhead to processing plant to pipeline to end-user. Because of this,compression equipment is essential and ubiquitous at every single stage in the supply chain. Are there any investment opportunities in companies that manufacture this type of equipment. Thankyou, Anthony Martignetti, subscriber

  6. Jay
    January 18th, 2011 at 12:04 | #6

    As a Progress Energy customer on nuclear powered electricity, we definitely need get our act together and develop an energy policy that works long term. Nuclear is the most reliable or China would not be so far ahead of us in using it. We need to find out how they get nuke plants on line and copy them. Then we need to go to LNG for autos and be done with all the wind farms, solar panels on our roofs and corn oil in our gas tanks.

  7. noel douglas
    January 18th, 2011 at 12:49 | #7

    Gentlemen / Ladies;
    Yes Desalination will grow at a very fast pace in the future, as the worlds Population expands at nearly 75,000,000 each year. Desalination requires more Service to keep it going, versue Lake or well water, as Sea Water contains approximately 40,000 PPM,(parts per million) of TDS,(total dissolved solids), to remove at all times. The waste water will be sent back into the Ocean and in certain areas, this will increase the TDS even to a higher level over time, which will require superior Membrane technology in the future.
    As for Nuclear, I would like to see Research into using Radioactive Microbes to break down the spent fuel, which is highly radioactive and takes several centuries to render harmless.
    I do believe that there are simple ways to produce electricity for the future, that I will not get into at this time. Sincerely, **Noel k. Douglas**

  8. Harold Segelstad
    January 18th, 2011 at 14:59 | #8

    Dr. Moors
    Please do more homework on the costs of nuclear power. Check out the Areva fiasco in Finland,3 years behind schedule and almost 100% over budget. Nuclear power is NOT economically attractive and can not be privately financed without massive government subsidies coming out of taxpayer pockets.As the retired Director of Renewable Energy R&D at PG&E I know we can provide ALL our energy needs through energy efficiency,concentrating solar thermal,geothermal,wind,etc.Obama’s $54 billion subsidization of nuclear is a dreadful blunder.

  9. Tom Toedtman
    January 19th, 2011 at 01:28 | #9

    Dr. Moors,
    I think you made a point, and if their politics are successful it would cause others to follow.
    There is no mention of reactor type in this. Although that might be considered secondary, I would be far more impressed if their pitch was for modular pebble bed reactor that could be “installed in less than half the time”, can’t melt down uses no water, blah, blah.
    Something for the people who are paying for it. Without this, it makes their plan seem like a desperate attempt to “fix” everything e.g. rapidly aging infrastructure they are likely responsible for anyway. A big deal money grab kind of story.

    ANTHONY- take a look at Chart Industries for gas compressors.They have already been discovered, but you might continue your search from there.

  1. No trackbacks yet.