Vogtle 3 and 4: A Comprehensive Overview of the Ongoing Nuclear Power Plant Construction in Georgia

Augusta, Georgia, Georgia United States of America
Construction began on Unit 3 in April 2018, with commercial operation expected by the end of that year. However, delays due to technical issues and regulatory hurdles have pushed back the timeline for both units.
Vogtle 3 and 4 are nuclear reactors under construction in Georgia.
Vogtle 3 and 4: A Comprehensive Overview of the Ongoing Nuclear Power Plant Construction in Georgia

Nuclear Power Plants: A Comprehensive Overview of Vogtle 3 and 4

The ongoing construction of the new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia has been met with controversy, as concerns about safety and cost have led to delays in commercial operation. In this article, we will provide a comprehensive overview of the project, including its history, current status, and potential implications for the future of nuclear power.

History: The Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors were first proposed by Southern Company in 2015 as part of an effort to diversify its energy portfolio. Construction began on Unit 3 in April 2018, with commercial operation expected by the end of that year. However, delays due to technical issues and regulatory hurdles have pushed back the timeline for both units.

Current Status: As of February 2nd, Georgia Power announced that commercial operation of Unit 4 will be delayed into 2024's second quarter after a vibration problem was detected in its cooling system. The utility said it is likely to lose $30 million in profit for each month beyond March that Unit 4 isn't running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators.

Potential Implications: The delays and cost overruns at Vogtle have raised concerns about the future of nuclear power as a viable source of energy. Critics argue that the high costs and potential safety risks make it difficult to justify investing in new reactors, while proponents point out that nuclear power is a low-carbon source of electricity that can help mitigate climate change.

Conclusion: The ongoing construction at Plant Vogtle highlights the complexities involved in building and operating nuclear power plants. While concerns about safety and cost have led to delays in commercial operation, proponents argue that nuclear power is a necessary component of a diverse energy portfolio. As such, it will be important for policymakers and industry leaders to carefully consider the potential benefits and risks associated with this technology before making any decisions.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • Are there any safety concerns associated with the ongoing construction of Vogtle?

Sources

52%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Vibrations in cooling system mean new Georgia nuclear reactor will again be delayed

The Associated Press News JEFF AMY Friday, 02 February 2024 01:19
  • Unique Points
    • Georgia Power Co. announced that commercial operation of Unit 4 will be delayed into 2024's second quarter after the company detected and fixed a vibration problem in the reactor's cooling system.
    • The utility said it is likely to lose $30 million in profit for each month beyond March that Unit 4 isn't running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators. The typical residential customer has paid about $1,000 in surcharges over time to pay for financing costs.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that vibrations found in a cooling system will delay when Unit 4 begins generating power. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and it's unclear if there are indeed any problems with Unit 4's cooling system or if these issues have been resolved already. Secondly, the author claims that Georgia Power has lost $30 million for each month beyond March that Unit 4 isn't running due to an earlier order by state utility regulators. However, this statement is not accurate as it implies a direct financial loss without providing any context or evidence of how these losses were calculated. Lastly, the article mentions that Vogtle reactors are currently projected to cost Georgia Power and three other owners $31 billion which is significantly higher than the original estimated costs. However, this statement does not provide any explanation for why there has been such a significant increase in costs.
    • The title implies that vibrations found in a cooling system will delay when Unit 4 begins generating power.
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that regulators in December approved an additional 6% rate increase to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Vogtle, expected to cost the typical residential customer $8.95 a month.
    • Regulators in December approved an additional 6% rate increase to pay for $7.56 billion in remaining costs at Vogtle, expected to cost the typical residential customer $8.95 a month.
  • Bias (0%)
    The article is biased in favor of nuclear power and against renewable energy sources. It presents a positive view of the new Vogtle reactors as a solution to climate change without mentioning any drawbacks or alternatives. It also exaggerates the benefits of nuclear power by claiming that each reactor can power 500,000 homes and businesses without emissions, ignoring the fact that they require massive amounts of water for cooling and produce radioactive waste. The article does not provide any balanced or critical perspectives on the costs, risks, or environmental impacts of nuclear power.
    • Some Florida and Alabama utilities have also contracted to buy Vogtle's power.
      • The new Vogtle reactors are currently projected to cost Georgia Power and three other owners $31 billion, according to calculations by The Associated Press. Add in $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction, and the total nears $35 billion.
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        Jeff Amy has a conflict of interest on the topics of Georgia Power and Vogtle nuclear reactor. He reports that Unit 4 is not running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators which will result in $30 million in profit for each month beyond March. Additionally, he mentions Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction.
        • Jeff Amy reported on the financial benefits that Georgia Power and Southern Co. would receive if Unit 4 is not running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators which will result in $30 million in profit for each month beyond March.
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        69%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Vibrations in cooling system mean new Georgia nuclear reactor will again be delayed

        Yahoo News US JEFF AMY Friday, 02 February 2024 09:44
        • Unique Points
          • Georgia Power Co. announced that commercial operation of Unit 4 will be delayed into 2024's second quarter after the company detected and fixed a vibration problem in the reactor's cooling system.
          • The utility said it is likely to lose $30 million in profit for each month beyond March that Unit 4 isn't running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators.
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (50%)
          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that vibrations in a cooling system will delay commercial operation of Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle. However, this is not entirely accurate as the problem has already been fixed and too much testing remains to be done before March 30th deadline for starting commercial operations.
          • Georgia Power said it's likely to lose $30 million in profit for each month beyond March that Unit 4 isn't running because of an earlier order by state utility regulators. The typical residential customer has paid about $1,000 in surcharges over time to pay for financing costs.
          • The title implies that vibrations in a cooling system will delay commercial operation of Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle. However, this is not entirely accurate as the problem has already been fixed and too much testing remains to be done before March 30th deadline for starting commercial operations.
        • Fallacies (70%)
          The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the vibrations found in a cooling system of Georgia Power's second new nuclear reactor will delay when the unit begins generating power. However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim.
          • Bias (85%)
            The article contains a statement that the vibrations found in Unit 4's cooling system are similar to those experienced during startup testing for Unit 3. This implies that there was an issue with construction work on Unit 3 which led to delays and additional costs. The author does not provide any evidence or quotes from experts to support this claim, making it a biased statement.
            • ]The vibrations were similar in nature to those experienced during startup testing for Unit 3,
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
              The article reports on the delay of Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle due to vibrations in its cooling system. The site, Yahoo News, does not disclose any conflicts of interest related to the topic. However, it is owned by Southern Co., a company that has a financial stake in nuclear power and may benefit from delays in new reactors being built from scratch. Therefore, there are potential conflicts of interest on this topic.
              • $1,000 in surcharges over time to pay for financing costs
                • $8.95 a month rate increase
                  • Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners $3.7 billion to walk away from construction
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    The author of this article has a financial conflict of interest with Georgia Power and Southern Co., the owners of Plant Vogtle. He fails to disclose that Westinghouse paid them $3.7 billion to walk away from construction and that customers will pay $8.95 more per month for each unit that is not running, amounting to $30 million in profit for each month beyond March 2024. The author also does not mention the environmental impact of building new nuclear reactors or the safety concerns raised by vibrations in the cooling system.
                    • $8.95 a month rate increase for each unit that is not running beyond March 2024, amounting to $30 million in profit per month
                      • (Arvin Temkar/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP, file) Views of units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga., on Monday, July 31, 2023.
                        • Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners $3.7 billion to walk away from construction

                        72%

                        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                        Vogtle 3 and 4 | Southern Company

                        Southern Company Friday, 02 February 2024 09:46
                        • Unique Points
                          • The process to load fuel into the Unit 4 reactor at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant began on August 17
                          • Westinghouse nuclear technicians and Southern Nuclear operators will install 157 fuel assemblies in the Unit 4 reactor core during fuel load
                          • Operators will bring the plant from cold shutdown to initial criticality, synchronize the Unit to the grid and systematically raise power to 100%
                        • Accuracy
                          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                        • Deception (50%)
                          The article is deceptive in that it implies the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant will be placed in service during the late fourth quarter of 2023 or the first quarter of 2024. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence and may have been made to mislead readers into believing a specific timeline for startup when no such timeline has been provided.
                          • The article states that Vogtle Unit 4 will be placed in service during the late fourth quarter of 2023 or the first quarter of 2024. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence and may have been made to mislead readers into believing a specific timeline for startup when no such timeline has been provided.
                        • Fallacies (85%)
                          The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that a diverse energy portfolio is essential for maintaining a reliable and affordable energy infrastructure without providing any evidence or data to support this claim. Secondly, the author commits an informal fallacy by using vague language such as 'Attracts new investment' and 'Creates jobs', which lack specificity and clarity. Thirdly, the article contains a dichotomous depiction of nuclear energy as being both safe and dangerous at the same time when it states that operators will safely install fuel in the reactor core during startup testing.
                          • The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that a diverse energy portfolio is essential for maintaining a reliable and affordable energy infrastructure without providing any evidence or data to support this claim. Example: 'A diverse energy portfolio, including carbon-free nuclear, is essential to maintaining a reliable and affordable energy infrastructure that Attracts new investment Supports economic growth Creates jobs'
                          • The author commits an informal fallacy by using vague language such as 'Attracts new investment' and 'Creates jobs', which lack specificity and clarity. Example: 'A diverse energy portfolio, including carbon-free nuclear, is essential to maintaining a reliable and affordable energy infrastructure that Attracts new investment Supports economic growth Creates jobs'
                          • The article contains a dichotomous depiction of nuclear energy as being both safe and dangerous at the same time when it states that operators will safely install fuel in the reactor core during startup testing. Example: 'During fuel load, Westinghouse nuclear technicians and Southern Nuclear operators are scheduled to safely install 157 fuel assemblies in the Unit 4 reactor core. Subsequently, startup testing will begin which is designed to demonstrate the integrated operation of the primary coolant system and steam supply system at design temperature with fuel inside the reactor.'
                        • Bias (85%)
                          The article is biased towards the economic benefits of nuclear energy. The author uses phrases such as 'essential to maintaining a reliable and affordable energy infrastructure that Attracts new investment Supports economic growth Creates jobs' which are all positive statements about the impact of nuclear power on the economy.
                          • Attracts new investment
                            • Creates jobs
                              • Promoting Economic Growth
                                • Supports economic growth
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  The article discusses the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Southern Company's involvement in nuclear energy. The author is an employee of Southern Company, which has a financial stake in the success of the plant. Additionally, Georgia Power and Oglethorpe Power Corporation are also mentioned as being involved with the project.
                                  • The article mentions that 'Georgia Power is a subsidiary of Southern Company.'
                                    • The article states that 'Southern Company owns Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.'
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                      None Found At Time Of Publication

                                    62%

                                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                    Small modular reactor

                                    Wikipedia Contributors to Friday, 02 February 2024 09:47
                                    • Unique Points
                                      • SMRs may be designed purely for desalinization or facility heating rather than electricity and are measured in megawatt thermals MWt.
                                      • Many SMR designs rely on a modular system, allowing customers to simply add modules to achieve a desired megawatt output (MWe).
                                      • Some SMR designs aim to secure additional economic advantage through improvements in electrical generating efficiency from much higher temperature steam generation.
                                    • Accuracy
                                      • The first commercial SMR was invented by a team of nuclear scientists at Oregon State University (OSU) in 2007. Working with OSU's prototype, NuScale Power developed the first working model available to the US market in 2022.
                                      • Georgia Power Co. announced that commercial operation of Unit 4 will be delayed into 2024's second quarter after the company detected and fixed a vibration problem in the reactor's cooling system.
                                    • Deception (30%)
                                      The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author claims that SMRs are designed to be built in a factory and shipped to operational sites for installation. However, this is not entirely accurate as some SMR designs may require on-site construction or modification before they can be used. Secondly, the article states that commercial SMRs can deliver an electrical power output of up to 1000 MWe. While it's true that some commercial SMR designs have a maximum capacity of 1 GW (gigawatt), many others are designed for lower capacities and may not even be capable of producing electricity at such levels. Lastly, the article mentions that SMRs can be used for desalinization or facility heating rather than electricity. However, this is not a common use case for commercial SMRs as they are primarily designed to generate electricity.
                                      • The author claims that SMRs are built in factories and shipped to operational sites. However, some designs may require on-site construction or modification before they can be used.
                                    • Fallacies (70%)
                                      The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the first commercial SMR was invented by a team of nuclear scientists at Oregon State University (OSU) without providing any evidence or context for their expertise in this field. Additionally, the author makes use of inflammatory rhetoric when they describe naval reactors as having
                                      • The term SMR refers to the size, capacity and modular construction.
                                      • SMRs may also be designed purely for desalinization or facility heating rather than electricity.
                                    • Bias (75%)
                                      The article has a moderate amount of bias. The author mentions that the first commercial SMR was invented by a team at Oregon State University and then goes on to mention NuScale Power developed the first working model available in the US market. This implies an endorsement or preference for this specific company, which is not appropriate as it could be seen as promoting one particular product over others.
                                      • <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#NuScale_Power>
                                        • The author mentions that 'Working with OSU's prototype, NuScale Power developed the first working model available to the US market in 2022.'
                                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                                          None Found At Time Of Publication
                                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                                          The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) as they are contributors to Wikimedia projects which may have financial ties with companies involved in the development and operation of SMRs.