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...

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