Skip to main content

NEI Energy Markets Report (July 10th - 14th)

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity prices increased last week due primarily to hot temperatures (see pages 1 & 2). Gas prices at the Henry Hub fell $0.09 to $5.60/MMBtu, falling again to the lowest price over the past year (see page 4).

In 2006, total U.S. natural gas consumption is projected to fall below 2005 levels by 1.7 percent then increase by 4.2 percent in 2007. Electric power sector consumption of coal is projected to grow by some 0.3 percent in 2006 and by another 1.6 percent in 2007. Power sector demand for coal continues to increase in response to high natural gas and oil prices. Electricity consumption is expected to increase by 0.6 percent in 2006 and by 1.4 percent in 2007. In 2005, residential electricity prices rose an estimated 5.1 percent nationally. In 2006, these prices are expected to increase by 7.8 percent and, in 2007, by another 2.9 percent (see page 8).

For the report click here (pdf). It is also located on NEI's Nuclear Statistics webpage.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Nick said…
hhmm. Coal jumped last report, and fell back again this report. Did the large change in TXU plans fall through?
David Bradish said…
No, it appears several utilities canceled some of the planned plants.
Nick said…
hmmph. There seems to be remarkable volatility in these plans. I get the feeling that utilities are feeling very anxious, and indecisive, about the best way to go between various power sources.

Gas is expensive and volatile, coal is vulnerable to pollution and co2 concerns, wind is constrained by the limit to how quickly turbine manufacturers can ramp up and solar is still expensive. Nuclear has a long leadtime, and concerns about historical regulatory instability and cost overruns.

What's a utility to do?
David Bradish said…
There are more than 300 GW of coal and gas capacity each. There's about 100 GW of nuclear. Just as many cancellations have occurred for each of these technologies. It's an interesting trend.
Robert Merkel said…
While I don't expect the NEI guys to comment directly, but it seems to me that the refusal of the US to bite the bullet with respect to carbon pricing is probably making it harder for utilities to make sensible investments in new capacity. Everybody knows that carbon pricing is coming. But *when* it's going to come, and *how* it's going to come, are going to make a big difference for utilities in their investment plans.
Nick said…
"carbon pricing is coming. But *when* it's going to come"

Clearly, not until after January 20th, 2009.

Makes it hard to plan, with long lead times for coal and nuclear.

I would guess that this will tend to favor wind power and natural gas, simply because they can be installed quickly.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…