Skip to main content

NEI's Energy Markets Report - October 1 - 5, 2007

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:
Electricity peak prices increased between $3-13/MWh at all hubs. Generation outages and the lingering heat in the West drove prices at the Palo Verde and SP 15 hubs up by more than $10/MWh. Higher spot gas and hot temperatures also sent the Entergy, PJM West and ERCOT hubs up by more than $7/MWh. Peak prices at all the hubs last week were higher then the averages for the last four weeks and last 52 weeks (see pages 1 and 3).

Gas prices at the Henry Hub rose from $6.26/MMBtu to $6.54/MMBtu. Tropical storm fears and an increase in demand due to warmer than normal temperatures contributed to the increase in gas prices at the Henry Hub (see pages 1 and 3).

Nuclear plant capacity availability averaged 85 percent last week. Three reactors began refueling outages last week while two began maintenance (see pages 2 and 4).

Cushing OK WTI oil prices fell $0.55 to $81.70/barrel two weeks ago. Continued low surplus production capacity, weak petroleum inventories, and strong demand worldwide have all contributed to recent high crude oil prices (EIA’s STEO, see pages 1 and 3).

According to NOAA’s most recent projection of heating degree-days, winter in the lower- 48 States is forecasted to be 4 percent colder compared with last winter but 2 percent warmer than the 30-year average (1971 to 2000). Average winter-season (October 1 to March 31) prices and expenditures for all space-heating fuels are projected to be higher than winter 2006-2007. Cooling degree-days this summer were 12 percent higher than normal and slightly higher than last summer. For the entire year of 2007, total electricity consumption is expected to grow about 2.4 percent, primarily due to a surge in electricity consumption in the first quarter (EIA’s STEO, see pages 2 and 5).
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…