Perry is trying “to essentially end competition in U.S. power markets in order to force customers to pay billions of dollars for uneconomic coal and nuclear plants they don’t want or need,” Mark Kresowick, an expert on FERC rules, told ThinkProgress. Kersowick called the move “unprecedented.”
Perry wants to stop cheaper, cleaner renewables like solar and wind from shutting down more dirtier and more expensive plants like coal (and nuclear).
Significantly, Germany has one of the most reliable electric grids in the world, with 10 times fewer minutes of grid outages a year than the United States. In the morning of May 8, 2016, a whopping 95 percent of Germany’s electricity was provided by renewables.
JOE ROMM, In a brazen move, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has ignored the findings of his own grid study and proposed a new federal rule that would effectively force Americans to buy dirtier, more expensive power.The Department of Energy (DOE) announced Friday morning that Perry has “formally proposed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) take swift action to address threats to U.S. electrical grid resiliency.” FERC oversees the U.S. grid and regulates interstate electricity transmission.To make his case, Perry has fabricated an economic threat to U.S. grid reliability from cheap renewables and then proposed a rule to account for the imaginary reliability benefit of other electricity sources — all the while ignoring the actual health and environmental costs of carbon pollution from burning coal that aren’t priced in to the market yet.
Perry is trying “to essentially end competition in U.S. power markets in order to force customers to pay billions of dollars for uneconomic coal and nuclear plants they don’t want or need,” Mark Kresowick, an expert on FERC rules, told ThinkProgress. Kersowick called the move “unprecedented.”
Oops: Rick Perry may have stumbled upon the solution to going 100 percent renewable
Buried in his grid study is how electric cars and smart control systems will enable deep penetration of solar and wind energy
In the notice of proposed rule-making, Perry says FERC should “issue a final rule requiring its organized markets to develop and implement reforms that would fully price generation resources necessary to maintain the reliability and resiliency of our nation’s grid” within 60 days. FERC is an independent commission and not obligated to take up Perry’s proposal.
In the simplest terms, Perry wants to stop cheaper, cleaner renewables like solar and wind from shutting down more dirtier and more expensive plants like coal (and nuclear).
This is an especially brazen move because Perry’s own grid study, the one he asked DOE staff for back in April, totally undercuts any rationale for such a move. That study concluded that renewables have not harmed grid reliability and that myriad strategies exist to allow deep penetration of renewables.
In fact, the leaked draft of the staff report (before political appointees were able to massage it) had actually pointed out that “the power system is more reliable today”– even with far greater use of renewables — and that “high levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.”
Trump officials rewrite Energy Dept. study to make renewables look bad, fail anyway
Rick Perry-commissioned study finds renewables don’t hurt grid reliability but do help stabilize prices.
Even the final version of the study, which was cut back, found that renewable energy “performs a price stabilizing roll” and can “improve the month-to-month manageability of customer bills.” But Perry apparently doesn’t want US consumers to enjoy stable prices.
Perry’s move is also brazen because it is an attempt to literally fight the future. All the other major countries in the world are shifting towards renewables (see chart – on original).
Bloomberg New Energy Finance chair Michael Liebreich reported on the remarkable surge in non-hydro renewables around the world in his “state of the clean energy industry” keynote last week at BNEF’s Future of Energy Summit in London.
As you can see from the chart, while the United States has tripled the penetration of new renewables from 3 percent to 9 percent in the past decade, Japan is at 12 percent, the UK is at 25 percent and Germany is at 29 percent. These are, respectively, the world’s third-largest, fifth-largest. and fourth-largest economies. Even China has more renewables than we do.
Significantly, Germany has one of the most reliable electric grids in the world, with 10 times fewer minutes of grid outages a year than the United States. In the morning of May 8, 2016, a whopping 95 percent of Germany’s electricity was provided by renewables.
Somehow, the U.S. needs “swift action” to address the imaginary problems associated with a mere penetration of new renewables of 9 percent.
NRDC Analysis: Nuclear Energy and a Safer Climate Future Natural Resources Defense Council ·September 29, 2017Matthew McKinzie “……….NRDC Recommendations on Nuclear Energy
Our report puts forward three nuclear-related recommendations that logically follow from NRDC’s climate and energy policy analysis and projections:
Regulators should explore approaches for replacing retiring nuclear units with zero-carbon resources and protecting the livelihoods of workers and host communities. As U.S. nuclear plants reach the end of their operating licenses or becomes uneconomical to run, growing numbers of reactors are likely to be retired. Regulators and other stakeholders will need to avoid abrupt closures, which could result in carbon emission increases from replacement generation. They should instead plan for shutdowns with sufficient time to ensure the lost power is reliably replaced with clean energy, and the livelihoods of workers and nearby communities are protected. The Joint Proposal to replace California’s only remaining nuclear power plant, the two Diablo Canyon reactors in San Luis Obispo, provides a model of an appropriate transition plan.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NRC, and states should address existing nuclear safety and fuel issues. The EPA and NRC should adopt stronger regulations to address the environmental impacts of uranium mining as well as the safety and security risks associated with nuclear plant operations. The federal regulations governing the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors need to be fundamentally overhauled. Rather than relitigate unworkable ideas like the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, the federal government should develop a scientifically defensible and publicly accepted consent-based siting process for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Accordingly, Congress should amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to remove its express exemptions of radioactive material from environmental laws, thus creating a regulatory role for the EPA and the states in nuclear waste disposal.
The federal government should continue to fund research into nuclear energy. Long-term federal investment in energy technologies is a key aspect of federal energy policy, including DOE programs that support R&D for nuclear fuel cycle and reactor designs. Government spending on advanced nuclear R&D must prioritize the analysis of severe accident scenarios and security vulnerabilities. While cost estimates for advanced nuclear designs should be rigorously examined early in their R&D cycle, the cost and reliability assessments can only be realistically understood based on the performance of an advanced nuclear prototype and a first-of-a-kind commercial reactor. Highly expensive projects should be evaluated as public-private partnerships to judge market viability for a given advanced nuclear design. Nuclear weapons proliferation impacts should also be addressed early in the R&D cycle; advanced nuclear designs that require a closed nuclear fuel cycle to reprocess spent nuclear fuel should be rejected outright given the associated proliferation risk, high cost and production of secondary nuclear wastes…………https://www.nrdc.org/experts/matthew-mckinzie/nrdc-analysis-nuclear-energy-and-safer-climate-future
Microgrids built around cheap renewable power and battery storage are now the fastest and cheapest way to restore power — while at the same time building resilience into the grid against the next disaster.
That’s been proven by Florida after Hurricane Irma, Japan after the tsunami that caused the Fukushima meltdown, and India after recent monsoons.
Unfortunately, the anti-renewable Trump administration appears unlikely to pursue this winning strategy. Indeed, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Tuesday that small nuclear power plants being researched at national labs are the kind of “innovation” he’d like to “expedite” for Puerto Rico’s rebuild.
“Wouldn’t it make abundant good sense if we had small modular reactors that literally you could put in the back of C-17 [military cargo] aircraft, transport it to an area like Puerto Rico, and push it out the back end, crank it up, and plug it in?” he said at an event in Washington, D.C. for National Clean Energy Week. “Hopefully, we can expedite that.”
It would be quite an effort of expedition. Such small nuclear power plants are not expected to be commercialized until the mid-2020s, and even if they are, they are projected to be wildly expensive — just like current reactors — and not that small (650 tons). Nobody’s going to be “literally” putting one in a C-17 and pushing it out the back end on a small island ready to go.
The U.S. territory doesn’t have time for such political pipe dreams.
Right now, Puerto Rico’s desperate lack of power — for hospitals, water and sewage facilities, and air-conditioning in the sweltering heat — is at the center of the ongoing humanitarian crisis for the 3.4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico.
Hurricane Maria destroyed 55 percent of the transmission towers that support high-voltage power lines and wrecked 90 percent of the distribution network, according to utility experts who have assessed the damage, Reuters reported.
Reuters put together this remarkable graphic on “power restoration after major U.S. hurricanes.”
But this tragedy does open an opportunity. The old grid was an antiquated, expensive, polluting disaster. Mired in debt, the local utility declared bankruptcy in July. (For a useful history, see the Huffington Post’s “Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy Doomed It To Dirty Electricity — And Now Darkness.”)
Only 2 percent of the sunny and windy Caribbean island’s electricity comes from renewables, while all the rest comes from fossil fuels. In 2016, an astounding 47 percent of electricity came from petroleum, especially from dirty, inefficient diesel generators. By comparison, the U.S. as a whole generates under 1 percent of its power from petroleum and 15 percent from renewables.
Bringing fuel to an island is expensive. The commercial price of electricity on Puerto Rico is an astounding 21.4 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 11 ¢/kwh for the mainland. The industrial price of electricity on the island is an unheard of 18 ¢/kwh, compared to 7 ¢/kwh for the mainland.
No wonder the utility is bankrupt, and the island is economically uncompetitive.
In terms of speed of recovery, nothing beats solar with storage. As Inside Climate News reported, Florida homes with solar panels and batteries that lost power from Irma in the early hours of Monday, September 11 were able to restore power in a few hours when the sun came up. Long before others, they could use lights, refrigerators, and wifi.
Coral Springs Florida used solar plus batteries to quickly restore 13 major traffic lights. Although it’s worth noting that solar homes without storage are out of luck in Florida. The utility, FPL, does not allow grid-connected systems without batteries to be used during an outage. And the state coderequires you to be connected to the grid even if you could be grid free.
Case studies from Japan, India, and Hawaii also make clear the only technologies that can simultaneously deliver the fastest, cheapest, cleanest, and most disaster-resilient rebuild possible are micro-grids built around renewables and storage.
When northeast India was ravaged by an unprecedented deluge this summer, causing widespread blackouts, buildings with solar roofs were able to keep the lights on, even after the sun set. DESI Power has been installing the solar across the region. Panels are mounted either on the roof or a few feet off the ground so they can survive flooding. The battery box is typically portable, so it can be can be moved in case of flood. “Despite the heavy flooding, we were pleasantly surprised to find that nearly 75 percent of our power systems remained functional,” DESI’s chief operating officer told NexusMedia.
In less than a decade, more than half a million people in India who had lacked electricity now have off-grid solar. As one expert on distributed solar in the region said, “Solar power has changed people’s lives, improved their health and enhanced their livelihood opportunities while benefiting the environment.”
Japan has gone even further following the 2011 tsunami that caused the Fukushima meltdown. In what Reuters described last week as a “quiet energy revolution,” dozens of cities have gone off grid or built renewable micro-grids with the help of Japan’s “National Resilience Program,” which had $33 billion in funding this year.
Higashi Matsushima, a city of 40,000 that lost 75 percent of its homes and 1,100 people in the 2011 catastrophe, built microgrids and decentralized its power generation “to create a self-sustaining system” that can meet a quarter of its electricity demand.
Such a micro-grid can allow basic needs to be met even if the region suffers a cascading grid failure. The city “built its own independent transmission grid and solar generating panels as well as batteries to store power that can keep the city running for at least three days.”
As for cost, the Hawaiian island of Kauai now produces some 90 percent of its midday peak power from only solar and batteries. Tesla has a 20-year contractwith the island’s utility to provide power at 13.9 ¢/kwh. That compares with the utility’s electricity cost for diesel power of 15.5 ¢/kwh — and it’s nearly half the 27.7 ¢/kwh that Hawaiians paid last December for electricity.
Dirty energy is not only dirty, it is very expensive for an island. Nuclear power is expensive everywhere. Neither are resilient to extreme disaster.
Renewables are fast, clean, resilient, cheap — and getting cheaper every year. They are exactly what Puerto Rico’s grid needs.
Nuclear bomb shelter sales are soaring due to North Korean threats, Yahoo Finance Daniel Howley Technology Editor, the saber rattling, coupled with North Korea’s stated objective of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, have plenty of people on edge.
And nowhere is that clearer than in the number of nuclear fallout shelters being purchased here in the U.S.
“We’re probably upwards of 1,000% from this time last year,” Gary Lynch, general manager of Rising S Company said of the number of bunkers his company has sold in 2017.
A size for everyone (sort of)
Texas-based Rising S Company, whose tagline is “Safe until the rising sun,” a nod to the Christian belief that the Second Coming of Christ will precede the end of the world, offers bunkers in a variety of price ranges. The base model is an 8 x 12-foot mini bunker for $39,500 while the top-of-the-line “The Aristocrat” luxury bunker, which features a bowling alley, gym, gun range, green house, pool and garage, goes for $8,350,000.
Sharon Packer, CEO of Utah-based Underground Shelters USA, says her company has seen sales of bunkers triple this year, with a significant increase taking place in the last six months. Packer, a nuclear engineer, says her company’s shelters can survive being within 1/4 of a mile from the blast crater of a 1-megaton nuclear bomb.
Underground’s best-selling shelter costs about $70,000 and gets you about 32 x 10 feet of space. Packer says you’d be able to stay in one of her company’s shelters for as long as you have access to clean water.
Brian Duvaul, sales manager with American Safe Room, a bunker company based in Oregon, explained that sales generally slow down around fall and winter as the ground becomes difficult to dig, but that so far this fall, sales are looking up…….
Bottom line: The buyer universe could be fairly limited. Many foreign financial sponsors or strategics — particularly from China — would have trouble passing U.S. regulatory muster, while the U.S. nuclear services space is so small that domestic rivals could face antitrust scrutiny.
Behind the deal: Westinghouse is the only U.S. company to receive U.S. building permits for new nuclear power plants since the Three Mile Island incident nearly four decades ago – even though cost overruns on those plants helped cause the Chapter 11 filing (and also led to Toshiba having to put its memory chips biz on the block). The Apollo and Blackstone bid would not include exposure to those still-unfinished facilities or their liabilities, instead focusing on a nuclear power plant services business that reportedly generates around $400 million in annual EBITDA.
Details: A sale could be valued at around $4 billion, with other private equity firms reported to be picking the tires. PJT Partners is managing the process.
Connections: Apollo already is tied into this deal via a debtor-in-possession financing, while Blackstone owned a nuclear power plans more than a decade ago via its purchase of Texas Genco.
Indo-US Nuclear Agreement Is An Arms Deal: Ex-US Senator Larry Pressler https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indo-us-nuclear-agreement-is-an-arms-deal-ex-us-senator-larry-pressler-1756557 Former US Senator Larry Pressler said the focus of Indo-US bilateral partnership should be on ‘agriculture, technology and health care’ All India | Press Trust of India September 29, 2017 NEW DELHI: The civil nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the US is more of an “arms deal”, but the focus of the bilateral partnership should be on “agriculture, technology and health care”, former US Senator Larry Pressler said today. Mr Pressler, who has served as chairman of the US Senate’s Arms Control Subcommittee, also had a word of caution for Pakistan.
He said if Pakistan did not act on terrorism, the Trump administration could declare it “a terror state”. “I would love to see peaceful use of nuclear energy, but I am worried that so far it (nuclear agreement) has mostly been an arms deal. It seems to me that much of the new agreement is a large arms sale to Indians,” Mr Pressler said.
The former US Senator was speaking during the launch of his book.
India and the US signed the nuclear cooperation agreement in October 2008, ending India’s isolation by the West in the nuclear and space arena. The deal has given a significant boost to India’s nuclear energy production.
Mr Pressler said former US President Barack Obama’s visit to New Delhi was “largely an arms sale trip”. On whether the US could declare Pakistan a “terror state”, he said, “Unless Pakistan does not change certain things, it may happen. Moreover, the Trump administration is making sounds that they are getting near this. And I hope they do.”
Mr Pressler is known for advocating amendments in the 1990s which banned most of the economic and military assistance to Pakistan, unless the US President certified on an annual basis that Islamabad did not possess nuclear explosive devices.
New nuclear lawsuit goes after SCANA officials’ bonuses, The State, BY JOHN MONK jmonk@thestate.com, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 A new lawsuit filed this week in state court by a SCANA stockholder names 12 top SCANA officials and seeks to recover more than $21 million in bonuses top executives got during the 10 years that a now-failed nuclear project was under construction.
This is the first of some half-dozen lawsuits filed against SCANA to date that names individual top SCANA executives and board members as defendants. It seeks to hold them individually responsible for “willfully violating their fiduciary duties,” or failing to act in the best financial interests of the company.
The lawsuit is also the first of the lawsuits filed by a stockholder. The others have been filed by SCANA customers, ratepayers who allege their monthly bills were unlawfully inflated by the company to pay for the bungled nuclear project.
“While driving SCANA to the brink of financial disaster, the Board (of directors) simultaneously rewarded SCANA executives with millions of dollars of bonus compensation, based upon their performance related to the (nuclear) project and other short-term performance metrics …,” the lawsuit alleges.
Three top SCANA officials – CEO Kevin Marsh, executive vice president Jimmy Addison, and executive vice president Steven Byrne – “totally failed to perform their duties owed to the company and its shareholders,” the lawsuit said……….
DEFENDANTS
Defendants in the lawsuit are:
▪ Kevin Marsh, SCANA board chair and CEO since 2011. He also served as president of SCANA’s principal subsidiary, SCE&G, from 2006-11.
▪ Gregory Afliff, a SCANA director since 2015. Afliff, a Virginia resident, is a certified public accountant.
▪ James Bennett, a SCANA director since 1997. Bennett, a Richland County resident, is chair of the board’s compensation committee, and an area executive for First Citizens Bank & Trust.
▪ John Cecil, SCANA director since 2003, a former president of Biltmore Farms and a North Carolina resident.
▪ Sharon Decker, SCANA director from 2005-13 and from 2015 to the present who serves on the nuclear oversight and compensations committees. A North Carolina resident, she is chief operating officer of Tryon Equestrian Partners.
▪ Maybank Hagood, SCANA director since 1999. A Charleston County resident, he is head of Southern Diversified Distributors.
▪ Lynn Miller, a SCANA director since 1997. A resident of Virginia, she is an environmental consultant.
▪ James Roquemore, a SCANA director since 2007. He is chair of the board’s nuclear oversight committee and sits on the compensation committee. An Orangeburg County resident, he is general manager of a company that produces and markets turf grass and sod.
▪ Maceo Sloan, a SCANA director since 1997. He is a member of the compensation and nuclear oversight committees. A North Carolina resident, he is president of a financial holding company in Durham.
▪ Alfredo Trujillo, a SCANA director since 2013. A member of the nuclear oversight committee, Trujillo is an investment advisor and president of the Georgia Tech Foundation.
▪ Jimmy Addison, SCANA executive vice president and SCE&G president. A Lexington County resident, he is responsible for nuclear financing.
$9 Billion Nuclear Scrapyard: New Aerial Photos of SCE&G’s Abandoned V.C. Summer Nuclear Project Reveal Disarray
Reactor Building and Components Left Unprotected; Most Cranes Removed, Friends of the Earth, 27 Sept 17 COLUMBIA, S.C. – Newly obtained aerial photographs of the abandoned V.C. Summer nuclear reactor construction site reveal that there is no protection of installed reactor components from the weather. (See notes on original for links to photos.)
The photos provided to Friends of the Earth are being released in the middle of the political firestorm in South Carolina about the terminated project. It has become clear that South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and its partner, Santee Cooper, withheld key information for years about the faltering project and were finally forced to simply walk away from on-going construction with no site shut-down plan in place.
The photos of the debacle, on which $9 billion was wasted, confirm that when work was abruptly halted on July 31, no preparation had been made to protect buildings and key components associated with reactor units 2 and 3. One existing reactor, visible in the photos, has operated at the site since 1982.
The photos, taken on September 18, reveal that nuclear reactor modules installed inside the open containment vessels are exposed to the weather. The partially finished ‘shield buildings,’ in which the reactors are located, lack roofs and sit fully exposed to the elements. Construction was only about 37% complete when the work was halted and had been continuing at a snail’s pace.
“Almost two months after the project was halted the V.C. Summer reactor construction site still looks like it was abruptly abandoned with no shut-down plan,” said Tom Clements, senior adviser to Friends of the Earth. “Not only was SCE&G grossly negligent during construction of the project, but the photos of the site reveal that the company also exhibited imprudent behavior in abandoning the project without proper closure plans. The forlorn site looks like a nuclear ghost town best suited for a Hollywood movie set,” added Clements. (Duke Energy’s abandoned nuclear reactor project in Cherokee County, South Carolina, was used as a set for the science fiction film The Abyss in 1989.)
Years of weathering will ravage the unprotected reactor components and partially constructed shield buildings and turbine buildings, according to Friends of the Earth. The turbine buildings, located adjacent to the reactors, sit without roofs and with open walls. A large number of white tent-like temporary buildings are visible and, according to information provided by site workers to Friends of the Earth, protect unused components. The short lifespan of the shelters will necessitate long-term plans if components are to be retained and not sold off.
Above – solar rooftop keep power going, in flooded Indian city
In Maria’s Wake, Could Puerto Rico Go Totally Green?, Progressive, by Harvey Wasserman, September 28, 2017 The ecological and humanitarian destruction of Puerto Rico has left the world aghast. But there is a hopeful green-powered opportunity in this disaster that could vastly improve the island’s future while offering the world a critical showcase for a sane energy future.
By all accounts Hurricane Maria has leveled much of the island, and literally left it in the dark. Puerto Rico’s electrical grid has been extensively damaged, with no prospects for a return to conventionally generated and distributed power for months to come.
In response Donald Trump has scolded the island for it’s massive debt, and waited a full week after the storm hit to lift a shipping restriction requiring all incoming goods to be carried on US-flagged ships. (That restriction is largely responsible for the island’s economic problems in the first place.)
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority is a state-owned operation that hosts a number of solar and wind farms, as well as a network of hydroelectric dams. But the bulk of its energy supply has come from heavy industrial oil, diesel and gas burners. It also burns coal imported from Colombia at a plant in Guyama.
The fossil burners themselves apparently were left mostly undamaged by Maria. But the delivery system, a traditional network of above-ground poles and wires, has essentially been obliterated……..
According to Mark Sommer, a California-based energy expert, Puerto Rico could safeguard such critical facilities and far more quickly restore its power by letting go of the old paradigm of central-generated and distributed electricity, and moving instead to a decentralized network of green-based micro-grids.
Micro-grids are community-based networks that power smaller geographic and consumer areas than the big central grids like the one that served Puerto Rico. Mostly they are based on decentralized generation, including networks of roof-top solar panels. As Sommer puts it: “renewably powered microgrids are a relatively simple and already mature technology that can be deployed in months rather than years and once the initial investment is recovered deliver dramatically lower energy bills.”
Because Puerto Rico is mountainous and hosts many small, remote villages, the island’s best hope for a manageable energy future is with decentralized power production in self-sustaining neighborhoods. Built around small-scale wind and solar arrays, with battery backups protected from inevitable floods and hurricanes, Puerto Rico could protect its electricity supply from the next natural disaster while building up a healthy, low-cost energy economy……
Puerto Rico’s best hope for a safe, prosperous, sustainable energy future is to take control of its power supply with a mix of renewable generation, protected backup storage, and a decentralized, local-based network of community-owned microgrids. http://progressive.org/dispatches/could-puerto-rico-go-totally-green/
The push now is for the industry to receive special subsidies to remain economically viable
Nuclear power has been doomed by cost escalation, while gas, efficiency, and renewables continue to get cheaper. And subsidizing nuclear plants isn’t popular in the states where ratepayers would have to foot the bill
Simply put, political intervention in the U.S. electric power system distorts the market and is bad energy policy.
The “nuclear renaissance” that we have long waited for is falling short. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the number of new projects has drastically dropped. Among other things, they’ve been plagued by huge cost overruns, lower cost competitors, public fear, an aging workforce, rare required materials, and often unmanageable waste problems.
According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, the number of construction starts of nuclear reactors worldwide has sunk from a high of 15 in 2010, to 10 in 2013, to 8 in 2015, to 3 in 2016, and to just 1 in the first half of 2017. And most tellingly, premature nuclear shutdowns are occurring in even the richest nations.
Here in the U.S., a massive supply of low cost natural gas from shale, established low and stable cost coal fleets, and mushrooming wind and solar farms have left many nuclear plants unprofitable. Down from 104 just a few years ago, there are now 99 nuclear reactors in the country. It’s a rapidly aging fleet, with the average age for a U.S. nuclear plant now 36 years. This is obsolete by modern technology standards and closing in on the end of 40-year operating licenses. In fact, nearly 20% of our nuclear fleet is over 42 years old.
On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse, the only company that was actually building nuclear plants in the country, declared bankruptcy. And in July, after $9-10 billion had already been spent on construction, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two new Westinghouse reactors that were just 40% complete.
Even the two states proudest of their anti-CO2 agenda, which as I document here and hereare inevitably turning to more natural gas, are joining in. California has shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in the South, and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in the north will close by 2025. New York will shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant near NYC by 2021.
The push now is for the industry to receive special subsidies to remain economically viable. The idea really started in Illinois, where Exelon said that without subsidies, it would have to shutter three nuclear plants after the company lost $700 million in the last few years operating the plants.
And Exelon has also threatened to close other nuclear units in New York and its Three-Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which became infamous with a partial meltdown in 1979. It’s become uncompetitive: Three-Mile Island didn’t clear PJM capacity auction in May and has lost $300 million over the last eight years.
Legislatures in New York and Illinois have approved as much as $10 billion in special subsidies through zero-emission credit programs to keep older nuclear plants operational. Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Connecticut are considering similar special subsidies.
Naturally, competitors have filed lawsuits claiming that nuclear subsidy schemes intrude on federal authority over wholesale energy prices. Subsidies give an unfair, seemingly manufactured advantage to nuclear generators in regional wholesale markets. Zero-Emission Credits distort energy price formation and increase uncertainty.
And we know that state and/or federal governments “choosing winners and losers” through direct subsidies bring higher utility bills for our homes and businesses. One study here finds that higher utility costs from the nuclear subsidy program in Illinois would eliminate 43,000 jobs in the state by 2030 and slash state revenues by $420 million.
All across our energy space, American homes and businesses win when there’s more free market competition, not less. This helps explain why at 12-13 cents per kWh, we enjoy some of the lowest power rates in the world and why nearly two-thirds of the states have deregulated electricity and/or natural gas in recent years. While gas will continue to remain abundant with low prices (I document that here), nuclear subsidies could continue to grow as plants inevitably age: U.S. nuclear capacity has been flat in the 105 gigawatt range since 1990.
Nuclear power has been doomed by cost escalation, while gas, efficiency, and renewables continue to get cheaper. And subsidizing nuclear plants isn’t popular in the states where ratepayers would have to foot the bill. Recent headlines tell the story:
“Subsidies for Nuclear Reactor Projects Waste Taxpayer Money,” U.S. News & World Report, August 17, 2017 (here)
“Poll: Overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians oppose nuclear bailout by Legislature,” The Beaver County Times, August 16, 2017 (here)
“Nuclear Subsidies Distort Competition And Increase Power Prices,” Investors.com, May 31, 2017 (here)
“Manufacturers oppose proposed $7 billion nuclear power subsidy,” Albany Business Review, August 1, 2016 (here)
Simply put, political intervention in the U.S. electric power system distorts the market and is bad energy policy. Carnegie Mellon University’s Electricity Industry Center has documented this fact for years, here. Now our main source of electricity, the fast growing incremental market share of gas is mostly why U.S. CO2 emissions are at their lowest levels in decades (here). Since 2000, gas has about doubled its total generation to 1,200 TWh, while nuclear has stagnated in the 750-800 TWh range. Indeed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s mission to be “fuel neutral” speaks against nuclear subsidies. This would support gas because it’s the most affordable of the most reliable sources (see Figure below on original ).
Trump govt offers nuclear plant $3.7B support Market Watch : Sept 29, 2017The Trump administration on Friday offered an additional $3.7 billion in loan guarantees to a troubled nuclear power plant project in Georgia that is billions over budget and years behind schedule, raising the total federal loan guarantees to $12 billion.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said it was important for the U.S. government to support the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which would be the first new nuclear reactors built in the country in more than three decades…….
It is the only remaining nuclear plant under construction in the U.S., after Scana Corp. in July pulled the plug on a similar project using Westinghouse reactors in South Carolina. That facility also encountered delays and cost increases, which raised its projected completion costs above $25 billion…….http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-govt-offers-nuclear-plant-37b-support-2017-09-29
World War 3 threat: Hawaii residents ordered to ‘prepare for North Korea nuclear attack’ OFFICIALS in Hawaii have have told islanders to prepare for a nuclear attack from North Korea, saying it was time to take the threat from King Jong-un “seriously”.The Independent, By ROSS LOGANAuthorities held a secret meeting last week to discuss contingency plans in the event of Pyongyang launching a deadly missile at the US islands.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has threatened to drop a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean amid fears Pyongyang has developed a nuclear missile capable of reaching Hawaii.
A document shared at the private talks, and obtained by local paper Honolulu Civil Beat, featured chapter headings such as “Enhance missile launch notification process between U.S. Pacific Command and the State Warning Point.”
The US state, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, will also begin testing a warning siren system in November, giving residents between 12 and 15 minutes to take refuge.
Resident wil then be advised to stay indoors for 72 hours after an attack.
State representative Gene Ward told the Washington Post: “Now it’s time to take it seriously.”
Scana decision may signal ‘beginning of the end’ of industry
Half of operating reactors could be retired in 17 years
The U.S. nuclear power industry could be out of business by the middle of the century.
The entire existing fleet of reactors may disappear by 2055 when the last operating license expires, S&P Global Ratings said in a report. That’s assuming there will be no license extensions. Half of the country’s 99 nuclear units may be retired in 17 years, S&P said.
The report comes on the heels of a decision by Scana Corp. to abandon plans to build two new reactors in South Carolina after costs soared to more than $20 billion and the contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. went bankrupt. Nuclear operators have been shutting plants as their profits have been eroded by generators burning cheap natural gas and by weak demand for electricity.
Scana Says S.C. Is Seeking Criminal Probe of Nuclear Project, Bloomberg, By Jim Polson and Mark Chediak, 26 September 2017,
Cost recovery for project ‘constitutionally suspect;’ A.G.
Utility owner intends to cooperate with all government probes
South Carolina’s attorney general called for a criminal probe into Scana Corp.’s handling of the canceled V.C. Summer nuclear expansion project, adding that it may not be entitled to charge customers for the plant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson was joined by state legislators in calling on the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division to open a probe, Scana said Tuesday in a filing. Separately, Wilson questioned the state law that allows utilities to recover the costs of unfinished or abandoned power plants. Scana said it will fully cooperate “with any potential government investigation.”…..https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-26/scana-says-s-c-is-seeking-criminal-probe-of-nuclear-project
Nikkei Asian Review 25th Sept 2017,Japan and the U.S. will likely let their existing nuclear cooperation
agreement renew automatically when the pact expires next July, enabling
Tokyo to continue reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
President Donald Trump’s administration has no intention of ending or renegotiating the deal, a
spokesperson at the U.S. State Department told The Nikkei Saturday. Since
the Japanese government has been seeking the pact’s renewal, there is now a
good chance that the treaty will simply remain in force without any
modifications. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/US-to-renew-nuclear-pact-with-Japan
nuclear-news 