Skip to main content

NEI Energy Markets Report (November 27th - December 1st)

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

Electricity prices mostly increased throughout the country last week (see pages 1 & 2). Gas prices rose at the Henry Hub increasing $0.41 to $7.81 / MMBtu (see page 4).

From 2006-2010, the current capacities in the pipeline coming into operation are 51,442 MW for natural gas; 36,853 MW for coal; and 24,791 MW for wind (see page 8).

The Energy Information Administration released its reference case for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007 this week. According to the report, “total operable nuclear generating capacity will grow to 112.6 gigawatts in 2030, including 3 gigawatts of additional capacity uprates, and 12.5 gigawatts of new capacity stimulated in part by EPACT2005 tax credits and rising fossil fuel prices.”

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

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
This post is interesting, noting that EIA expects 24 GW of new wind capacity by 2010. But it's important to consider what the average capacity factor is for the 24 GW of new wind capacity that is expected to come on line, versus the coal and natural gas. The wind should be about 1/3 of the capacity factor of the coal and gas plants, so the actual amount of energy that this new wind capacity will create will be about 1/3 too. This makes the 24/3 = 8 GW of wind look pretty small compared to 51 GW of gas and 37 GW of coal expected to come on line by 2010.
Alex Brown said…
Your point about the wind having a much lower capacity factor than coal is valid, but the same is not true about the gas plants. Not knowing where and of what type they are it is hard to know exactly what their capacity factors will be. However, looking at the area I know about: the southeat, combined cycle natural gas plants had ~8% capacity factors and gas turbine plants had ~1% capacity factor. So in fact the gas plants could very well be producing MUCH LESS energy than the wind plants depending on how they are employed. Gas turbines are often run for only a few hours a day on the hottest days of the year. Comined cycle plants run more, but they still arent producing power at night or during the spring/fall when it isn't in high demand.

It also of course shows how alot more knowledge of the subject is needed in order to evaluate the economics of a power source. For example TVA just paid ~90 million for 1000 MW of gas turbine capacity. The same amount of power will be produce by Brown's Ferry 1, but that is costing 1.8 Billion. The fact that the nuke plant costs 20 times as much per megawatt is easily misrepresented as proving that nuke plants are too expensive. But those gas turbines will be producing power at a capacity factor 1/100th of the nuclear plant, so in fact the nuclear plant is much more economical (which of course is why it will run 24/7 while the gas plants havent run in 4 years).

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…