NAS Report: Political, Regulatory and Financial Hurdles Complicate Indian Point Closure

In response to a request from Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the National Academy of Sciences undertook a study to determine how New York could compensate if the two nuclear reactors at Entergy's Indian Point Energy Center were closed. While the report concluded that the closure was "technically feasible," there were a number of significant hurdles in the way.

From the news release (emphasis mine):

The report emphasizes that the issues associated with the potential shutdown of Indian Point are complex and intertwined with broader energy issues. Even with Indian Point still operating in 2008, for example, southeastern New York would require 500 more megawatts of new generating capacity than is now under construction in the state. And if Indian Point were closed, New York's current government mechanisms and regulatory policies may limit its ability to address the consequences. Closing the plant would require a long-term, integrated strategy that may include changes to state law and policies, such as reauthorization of the Article X statute, which was designed to facilitate the environmental review and siting of new power plants.

New power plants, improvements in electricity transmission and energy efficiency, and distributed generation could contribute to replacing the energy lost by the closure of Indian Point, the report says. Most new power plants are likely to be fueled with natural gas. However, the committee expressed concern over this increasing reliance on natural gas because new sources of the fuel, such as imported liquefied natural gas, may be required. It noted that constructing new power plants upstate may be easier than doing so in New York City or Westchester County, but building upstate would require upgraded transmission capacity as well.

Electricity from new plants is almost certain to be more costly than that from Indian Point, the committee said. However, given the state's new regulatory structure for pricing electricity, the committee could not accurately estimate the increase in the cost of electricity to consumers that might result from the plant's closure. In addition, to the extent that the reactors are replaced with plants that burn fossil fuel, emissions of carbon dioxide will be higher, complicating efforts by New York to reduce greenhouse gases under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

In other words, the idea is "technically feasible," if you're not worried about raising electric rates, protecting the environment or the reliability of the electrical grid that supports America's largest city. That doesn't even take into account that new generating capacity would have to be natural gas-fired, increasing America's dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuel.

And if you could even do that, the state's regulatory structures would most likely be unable to fast-track the needed approvals for additional generation.

Doesn't sound very feasible to me. Click here for the full report.

UPDATE: This might be a good time to point everyone to the economic benefits report NEI prepared on Indian Point.

Here's more from the AP account of the report's release:

The committee warned that generating capacity in the New York City area may be outstripped by peak demand in as little as three years.

Indian Point is a 2,000 megawatt facility, and the state's power needs are expected to grow between 1,200 and 1,600 megawatts by 2010.

The experts also suggested public resistance, bureaucratic delay and market forces may slow the expansion of needed power plants until the demand reaches a crisis point.

"New generating capacity may not be available until reserves are dangerously low. Forestalling a crisis may require extraordinary efforts on the part of policy makers and regulators," the report said.

For all the coverage, visit Google News. And here's what we wrote when New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said in a policy speech in April that Indian Point should be closed.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Indian Point

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog