Skip to main content

NEI's Energy Markets Report - September 17 - 21, 2007

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:
Electricity peak prices experienced modest gains at all the hubs except for SP 15 and Palo Verde. SP 15 and Palo Verde decreased by more than $10/MWh last week as temperatures and demand receded (see pages 1 and 3).

Gas prices at the Henry Hub rose from $5.85/MMBtu to $6.22/MMBtu. Storage inventories are currently 8.2 percent above the 5-year average, and about 1 percent below last year’s storage level at this time according to EIA (see pages 1 and 3). Gas futures at the Henry Hub for October 2007 rose to $6.30/MMBtu (see page 2).

Total U.S. electricity production for the week ended September 15 fell 7.8 percent from the previous week. The weekly total was 5.4 percent higher than the corresponding week in 2006 (see page 1).

Nitrogen oxide allowance prices last week were 55 percent lower than the same one-week period for 2006. The average NOx price for June - August 2007 was $632.11/ton, 62 percent lower than June - August 2006. Average NOx prices for the three summer months in 2006 were $1,662.12/ton (see pages 1 and 3).

Cushing OK WTI oil prices increased $2.98 to $78.95/barrel. Crude oil futures also rose to $81.83/barrel for October. According to EIA, the Federal Reserve’s decision to lower interest rates on September 18 could be part of the reason crude oil prices are increasing. The EIA speculates that lower interest rates could cause crude oil prices to increase past the $80/barrel threshold (see pages 1, 2 and 3).
For the report click here. It is also located on NEI's Financial Center webpage.

Comments

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…