Davis-Besse, which generates 908 megawatts of FirstEnergy's total output of 14,200 megawatts, was scheduled to be out of action now for routine maintenance. But testing revealed 13 of 52 nozzles of its control-rod mechanism showed cracks or fatigue, forcing an extended outage until they are repaired
- Edited by April Murelio -
According to a report in the Toledo Blade, If the repairs under way at FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse nuclear power plant near Oak Harbor are completed before summer, it shouldn't affect the utility's bottom line.
Paul Fremont, an analyst with Jefferies Research, says the key question is how much more time are the nozzle repairs going to take. "How much longer than a normal refueling will this last?"
Reactor head repairs in 2002-2004 cost FirstEnergy $600 million in repairs and expense to buy energy to supply customers. Still, Mr. Fremont said that in the earlier situation "there was a real safety concern associated with the type of problem they identified, and it was compounded by NRC concerns with the business practices at the plant."
Mr. Fremont adds that those conditions aren't present now, and a major delay isn't expected.
"Ideally they are probably hoping it will be back before July," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with Dudack Research Group.
Davis-Besse, which generates 908 megawatts of FirstEnergy's total output of 14,200 megawatts, was scheduled to be down for routine maintenance. But testing revealed 13 of 52 nozzles of its control-rod mechanism showed cracks and/or fatigue.
Although Davis-Besse is part of the utility's overall generating capacity, its greater contribution, Ms. Seitz said, is that it produces power at a very low cost. "It's the plant with the best profit margin," she said.
Ellen Raines, a FirstEnergy spokesman, said the utility doesn't know how long the repairs will take. "We don't really know how it impacts us overall," she said. Davis-Besse is "a baseload plant, and you can assume we'd want that baseload capacity to be online as soon as possible," she said.
Anonymous comments will be moderated. Join for free and post now!
Why does the author equate units of power with output? I feel mixing metrics undermines the technical credibility of the piece.
Shouldn't "output be noted in units of energy? Even betteris replacing the term "output" with "guaranteed capacity" which casts nuclear energy in a more appropriate light compared with renewables like wind, for example.
I am just looking for all in cost of reliable capacity for Davis Besse over it's lifetime in $/MW. If you can help, please e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org Thank you.