Skip to main content

New England Report on LNG Expenses

Image
By
From the news at Maine Today comes an in-depth analysis article resulting from local opposition on many fronts to offshore LNG terminals, "With rejection of latest LNG suitor, proponents examine Maine options." The article mentions a report released by the Power Planning Committee of the New England Governor's Conference.
In March, the committee released a report analyzing the region's future demands for natural gas. The governors of the six New England states asked for the study last fall so they could better respond to LNG project proposals.

The committee looked at nine different energy options, including LNG, nuclear power and coal. They hope their findings will help governors chart a long-range plan for meeting future energy needs.
The entire report can be downloaded here.

The Power Planning Committee analysis of increased nuclear generation found little impact on peak LNG prices, due to only a small change in natural gas reserves, and uncertain effect of lower electricity costs on the national or international market of LNG (which is driven by several factors outside of electric generation, such as its use in producing fertilizer). This is an indication that the LNG market is now supply-driven; the US will use all it can get, regardless of cost, because of the demand and versatility of this product for multiple essential uses.

The report does note positive effects on the electricity market (instead of just the LNG market) through fuel diversity. Additionally, the cost of new nuclear production is offset by decreased use of expensive LNG for electricity generation.

The report goes on to confirm the lowest cost options for the New England region, after increased energy efficiency measures, were coal gasification and expanded nuclear power production. Then came renewables, and lastly, expanded LNG use (due to the rising cost of natural gas). However, it stopped short of recommending new nuclear power production because of the long lead times – the analysis assumes 1000 MWe station online by 2011.

Since lower electricity prices are not only good for the economy, but they are good for those least able to pay for power consumption, it is high time for responsible leadership in all regions of the country to take the long view and support the construction of new nuclear power production.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more