Natural Gas Crunch Could Shut Down Boston

From today's Boston Globe:

In March , ISO-New England CEO Gordon van Welie made headlines by putting coal and nuclear options on the table. Given New England's environmental attitudes, it is hard to believe that investors could be persuaded to risk their money developing either of these options.

[...]

The one thing states can't do is nothing. At a conference this year, van Welie told state utility regulators that if the Everett LNG facility lost its gas supply for a week during a January cold snap, the electric and gas grids in the City of Boston would fail.

I wonder how many more warnings the folks in New England need before disaster strikes?

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, New England

Comments

Anonymous said…

The article also puts focus on the dangers of deregulation, something I agree with.

Deregulation leads to a lack of long term planning, to higher power prices (=higher corporate profits) and in the long run higher power generation costs (as risks, and hence discount rates, become higher). Deregulation also gives a structural boost to low capital cost generation, such as natural gas plants.

Those things are still being planned and built in spite of North American gas extraction having peaked and gone into decline.

Fiddling while Rome burns, indeed.

On the other hand, as I have recently become an Exelon shareholder I am all for deregulation. Just not in my backyard.

Hehehe.

December 8, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Fat Man said…

New Englanders turn up their noses at wind, and they are too far north for solar or bio-mass. So where do they think their energy is going to come from? The Tooth-fairy?

Back in the seventies, Texans had bumper stickers that said things like:

Let them freeze in the dark

and

Out of gas? Out of work?
Burn a Yankee

December 9, 2006 at 12:03 AM

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog