The nuclear power industry is trying to get ahead of national energy
curve — producing a study in advance of the Obama administration’s Clean
Power Plan to cut carbon emissions. The sector’s report sets out to
quantify the fuel’s current economic and environmental contributions. At the same time, the Brattle Group’s study released this week wants
policymakers to look over the horizon — to see that the country needs
portfolio diversity, and to not become beholden to natural gas.
If the
goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, then the
analysis concludes that nuclear energy is an essential piece of the
puzzle — one that is basically carbon-free and cost-effective once
plants are up-and-running. “(P)olicymakers must act to avoid long-term economic consequences,”
says former Senator Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, in an email exchange. “As the
Brattle report underscores, preserving America’s existing nuclear fleet
is no exception” – a power source responsible for 19 percent of the
nation’s electricity.
Specifically, the Brattle Group’s analysis – commissioned by the pro-nuclear group Nuclear Matters
— says that nuclear energy plants contribute $60 billion a year to the
nation’s total economic output. That, in turn, is responsible for
475,000 jobs, both direct and secondary, as well as the prevention of
573 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change.
Beyond that, the study emphasizes that nuclear power plants run on
average at 90 percent capacity, more than any other type of plant. The
result of such productivity is inexpensive electricity, and the yearly
avoidance of 650,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1 million tons of sulfur
dioxide, which are tied to acid rain and smog.
FILE – In this March 16, 2011 file photo,
steam escapes from Exelon Corp.’s nuclear plant in Byron, Ill. Companies
that generate electric power with anything other than coal _ and
companies that produce cleaner fuels or efficiency technologies _ are
likely to benefit from the Obama Administration’s new proposed limits on
carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. (AP Photo/Robert Ray, File)
Without a doubt, nuclear energy is getting squeezed in today’s
market. On the front end, the capital cost of those plants runs well
into the billions — too expensive for nearly all utilities, unless the
federal government provides loan guarantees. Meantime, the abundance of shale gas has resulted in sustained low
natural gas and wholesale energy prices, making it difficult for the
“merchant” plants that sell their power at market prices to compete. As a
result, some nuclear units that are scheduled to be re-licensed may opt out, fearing that their power source cannot go head-to-head with today’s natural gas advantage.
How would that affect the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon plan, and is this not the free market at work?
Exelon Corp., the country’s largest nuclear producer, says that it
could close some of its facilities. To this end, Exelon and other
nuclear power plant operators want the EPA to alter its calculation of
nuclear energy’s climate contributions, giving full credit to states and
companies for their avoidance of carbon releases. That, in turn, would
enhance plants’ values and preserve their presence.
Already, five nuclear units have either shut down or have announced
that they will do so: Duke Energy and Southern California Edison closed
their Florida and Southern California facilities, respectively, because
of persistent technical issues. Meanwhile, Dominion Resources has
retired its Wisconsin unit, Exelon will shut down a New Jersey plant and
Entergy is ceasing operations at its Vermont Yankee facility, which was
licensed to run until 2032.
“I think EPA gets it,” says Chris Crane, chief executive of Exelon
Corp., at a recent Edison Electric Institute meeting. “We have asked for
nuclear to be recognized the same as other carbon sources.” If those changes are not made, “There’s an assumption that 6 percent
of the nuclear units in this country would be shut down,” he adds. “We
must compete against the marginal source: natural gas. And we do not see
those prices rising. We need diversification. We need a balanced
portfolio.”
As the coal portfolio here wanes, the main choices are hydro, wind
and solar as well as nuclear and natural gas fuels. By all accounts,
natural gas is now path of least resistance, and a lot easier to get the
associated plants built. Why would the nuclear sector try to counter
this prevailing trend?
There’s a strong case, the nuclear sector says, pointing out that
nuclear power accounted for 63.3 percent of low-carbon sources of
electricity. Hydropower, by comparison, accounted for 21.2 percent while
wind, geothermal and solar were 13.4 percent, 1.3 percent and 0.7
percent, respectively. That’s why the industry is now banking on Southern Co, Scana Corp.
and the Tennessee Valley Authority, which are actively developing
nuclear energy.
Southern Co. and its partners are building two new units where two
other nuclear reactors now reside. The total price tag is estimated at
$14 billion. Of that, the partnership has gotten $8 billion loan
guarantee while it puts up $6 billion of its money. Southern expects its
first unit to be operational by 2020 and Scana is on a similar
timetable. Both projects are being designed by Toshiba Corp. The federally-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, meanwhile, is
committed to building a new $4 billion nuclear reactor at its
“Bellefonte” site. The 1,260 megawatt facility is also expected to be
generating power by the end of the decade.
“As a nation, we cannot afford to let any more of our existing
nuclear energy plants close prematurely based on short-term economics or
ideology,” says former Senator Judd Gregg, R-NH, in an email exchange.
“We have to approach the issue of maintaining a diverse energy mix that
includes nuclear, which is critical to our energy security, with a
long-term, holistic view.”
Despite the setbacks, nuclear power has been a staple of the U.S.
electric generation market while making positive contributions to the
country’s economy and environment. It’s future here, though, is in
question: The competitive landscape now leans toward less
capital-intensive projects, however, the upcoming Clean Power Plan could
increase the chances of carbon-free nuclear power.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/07/08/should-nuclear-energy-try-to-fight-the-natural-gas-craze/3/?ss=energy