Skip to main content

NEI's Energy Markets Report - May 12-16, 2008

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:
Electricity peak prices at the Western hubs increased $3-23/MWh and decreased $6-57/MWh at the Eastern hubs. According to Platt’s Electric Power Daily (5/16/08), ERCOT has seen “its share of volatility in recent months” due to “an influx of new wind generation and not enough transmission… In 2006, there were 75 15-minute intervals in which real-time prices fell below $0/MWh. So far this year [2008], there have been already more than 2,250 occurrences” (see pages 1 and 3).

Gas prices at the Henry Hub increased $0.43 to $11.35/MMBtu. Working gas in underground storage as of May 9 was 1,529 Bcf, which is 0.2 percent above the five-year (2003-2007) average (EIA, see pages 1 and 3).

Estimated nuclear plant availability increased to 83 percent last week. Five units finished refueling outages and two units finished maintenance. Salem 2 shut down for several days due to steam generator instrumentation problems (Platts, see pages 2 and 4).

Uranium spot prices remained at $60/lb U3O8 (see pages 1 and 3). According to EIA’s 2007 Domestic Uranium Production Report, total production of U.S. uranium concentrate (yellowcake) in 2007 was 4.5 million pounds U3O8, 10 percent above the 2006 level. Total employment in the U.S. uranium production industry was 1,231 person-years for 2007, an increase of 63 percent from the 2006 total. And total expenditures for land, exploration, drilling, production, and reclamation were $336.2 million in 2007, 52 percent more than in 2006.

Northern and Central Appalachian coal spot prices continue to remain high ($100-105/short ton) due to overseas demand. The Illinois and Uinta Basin spot prices also are at elevated levels (about $45-60/short ton) but the Powder River Basin spot prices have seen only slight increases over the past few months (source: EIA).
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…