|
Post by joffan on Feb 8, 2014 2:31:06 GMT 9.5
Seems like the restrictions in the market and the (almost certainly temporary) low price of natural gas are making a number of nuclear plant operators look seriously at the economics of continued operation. Exelon says it could close nuclear plants to save moneyWould (say) 2c/kWh carbon fee on gas make a difference to the economics of these plants? And to maintain the same differential for solar and wind, their subsidy would need to be reduced by the same amount.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Feb 8, 2014 2:49:07 GMT 9.5
Minor variations in the demand of fuel in a saturated market like the US should not worry anyone. Complete impending closure like the Japan or Germany is more worrying. However, increase in demand of nuclear fuel and new build in China and India should compensate for it.
j
|
|
|
Post by Ed Leaver on Feb 8, 2014 10:55:09 GMT 9.5
I'm not so optimistic, Jagdish. The Daily Climate just posted a link to an EE article Nuclear giants urge market changes to thwart closures, well worth reading. One key point is that renewables advocates have convinced themselves that U.S. nuclear power is heavily subsidized and therefore wind and solar Production Tax Credits are no more than their fair due. Nothing could be further from the truth. U.S. nuclear pays its own way, but is predicated upon the promise of a firm baseload market to support its high capital and fixed operating costs. U.S. national energy policy is to subsidize wind and solar through PTC. The purpose of this policy is to promote deployment of wind and solar. The actual effect is to increase the deployed capacity of wind, solar, and natural gas. As intended. Carbon reduction is not a consideration, and emissions increase when nuclear plants close. As designed. This is our National Energy Policy: replace baseload nuclear and coal in unregulated (merchant) markets with intermittent wind and solar, and economically erratic natural gas. And since merchant markets are unregulated, market penetrations of wind and solar are completely dependent upon their subsidy, as their True Market Value is exactly that of the natural gas fuel cost they replace - currently about 4 or 5 cents/kWh in the U.S. The tragedy is that old, amortized nuclear plants can crank the product at a steady 2.4 cents/kWh -- but it must be steady. Intermittent wind and solar Production Tax Credits insure that it is not. Joffan: Carbon fees are usually assessed (if they are assessed) on a per-ton-CO2e emitted. $20 - $30/ton are typical (hypothetical) figures. At 1 ton CO2e/MWh coal and half that for gas (ymmv), that's 2 - 3 cent/kWh tax on coal and 1 to 1.5 cent/kWh tax on gas. U.S. effective wind PTC is about 3.3 cent/kWh, so you're in the ballpark. It was the delusion of such a carbon tax that drove the pre-fukushima "nuclear renaissance" in this country. But carbon taxes never happened and never will. The very best we can hope for is non-renewal of production tax credits and enough economy of scale building in regulated markets (U.S. and abroad) to drive the capital cost of new nuclear beneath that of coal. But given the economies of scale enjoyed by coal in the developing world, that's going to be a hard sell. Sometimes I think the LFTR lifters are right, but old as they are, those things are still at least a decade off.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 8, 2014 13:28:07 GMT 9.5
Independent system operators (ISOs) which set capacity prices bolster nuclear's role despite lower power prices caused by generation from other sources. Those ISOs which don't lose their nuclear power plants and their old coal burners. Then there are rolling blackouts. ERCOT (Texas ISO) is an example.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 11, 2014 11:15:59 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Mar 12, 2014 1:38:58 GMT 9.5
I can see VERY easily Ed's perspective as the most accurate. As it stands now, after 30 years from now, there may well be no operating nuclear plants in the US save for the 4 AP1000s being built in Georgia and S.Carolina. There simply are no plans to build more plants. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jul 16, 2014 2:00:33 GMT 9.5
|
|