EPRI Predicts the Energy Future

The Electric Power Research Institute, or EPRI, has updated a report that predicts what the energy mix will be in 2030 given the parameters set for carbon reduction by the energy bill passed by the House. Now, EPRI covers almost all electricity generators and favors none in particular, but its studies still answer to the interests of the electricity business. Since the goal here is to predict the optimum mix of energy sources needed to achieve a specific goal, you could easily decide to amp down some of EPRI’s proscriptions (say, less nuclear) and amp up others (say, more renwables). There is a game-like aspect to this. All that said, here’s the bottom line:

The U.S. needs to build 45 nuclear reactors and reduce power consumption by 8 percent by 2030 to meet greenhouse-gas emission reductions called for by Congress, a report funded by the electric industry says.

The Electric Power Research Institute, whose members produce and deliver more than 90 percent of U.S. power, issued the report today. It also calls building 100 million plug-in electric vehicles and retrofitting about 18 percent of U.S. coal-power plants to capture emissions.

So the nuclear element isn’t Lamar Alexander-like but neither is it unrealistic – and it also takes into account, also realistically, that anti-nuclear, anti-coal interests cannot fully eliminate them from the mix. However, Bloomberg’s Tina Seeley notes that these forecasts do not mirror those currently offered at DOE – at all:

[DOE’s] Energy Information Administration predicts 12,500 megawatts of new nuclear power by 2030. The EPRI report says 64,000 megawatts will be built.

The report also predicts 135,000 megawatts of new renewable electricity sources by 2030, accounting for 15 percent of U.S. generation. That is more than twice the government’s estimate of 60,000 megawatts in the same time period.

EPRI starts with EIA’s numbers, which are as definitive as any set could be. But of course, EIA’s numbers represents the government’s forecast now. These are always based on what’s known now – and that changes a lot over time, plus government doesn’t control most of the elements in play here. Neither does EPRI, but EPRI is several degrees of separation closer to the industry.

We’re not arguing for EPRI and against EIA, just making a distinction. And it’s likely EIA’s numbers that will receive most attention from Congress as the energy bills move closer to completion. But, at the very least, EPRI does show a talent for going in for the kill:

“The analysis confirms that while the cost of implementing major CO2 emissions reductions is significant, development and deployment of a full portfolio of technologies will reduce the cost to the U.S. economy by more than $1 trillion,” according to a summary of the report.

Well, okay, then.

Madame Olga wants a word with you – invites you into her tent – and looks into the crystal ball - but then a shadow crosses her face – and she tells you to leave – leave immediately – she follows you out - and scans the night sky for meteors.

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