29th Street Ballroom
STNP Boondoggle Worse Than Reported
RECEIVED Wed., Aug. 13, 2003
To the Editor:
I want to correct misperceptions about Austin's biggest boondoggle, the South Texas Nuclear Project. Your recent story ["Patched Atoms: Feds OK Restarting the Nuke," Aug. 8] said that it was 10 years behind schedule and eight times over budget. For the record, it was eight years behind schedule and 460% over budget. The outage is so awful that it does not need to be overstated.
I wish Austin Energy were as conscientious as I am in giving out facts. For reasons that escape me, our municipally owned utility feels compelled to defend and even promote the nuke as an inexpensive form of power.
When the nuke went down, we not only paid for the repair ($4 million), but replacement fuel charges and debt payments while the plant was down for repair and safety review following repair. If you estimate the nuke was down for four months, the increased cost of fuel is about $28 million and the debt payments are another $28 million. That's $60 million for a plant that Austin Energy claims "produces energy cheaper than any power plant in Texas."
I stand politically and technically correct.
I want to correct misperceptions about Austin's biggest boondoggle, the South Texas Nuclear Project. Your recent story ["Patched Atoms: Feds OK Restarting the Nuke," Aug. 8] said that it was 10 years behind schedule and eight times over budget. For the record, it was eight years behind schedule and 460% over budget. The outage is so awful that it does not need to be overstated.
I wish Austin Energy were as conscientious as I am in giving out facts. For reasons that escape me, our municipally owned utility feels compelled to defend and even promote the nuke as an inexpensive form of power.
When the nuke went down, we not only paid for the repair ($4 million), but replacement fuel charges and debt payments while the plant was down for repair and safety review following repair. If you estimate the nuke was down for four months, the increased cost of fuel is about $28 million and the debt payments are another $28 million. That's $60 million for a plant that Austin Energy claims "produces energy cheaper than any power plant in Texas."
I stand politically and technically correct.
Yours,
Paul Robbins
Paul Robbins