Skip to main content

Key Nuclear Stats From EPA's Economic Analysis of the "American Power Act"

According to EPA’s core policy analysis of Senators Kerry and Lieberman’s proposed legislation released yesterday, nuclear energy is projected to generate 44.2% of the US’ electricity in 2050, more than any other source. Total nuclear capacity is projected to more than double from 101 gigawatts in 2010 to 256 gigawatts in 2050 (assuming 90% capacity factor). This means that if all existing operating plants in the US retire at 60 years, the US will need to build another 253 GW or 181 new plants (assuming 1,400 MW each). There are not many quotes for nuclear in the two reports at the link above, but the good numbers below are found in their data tables in the zip folder.

US Electricity Generation StatsEPA APA Electric Fuel SharesIGCC – integrated gasification combined cycle coal plants, CCS – carbon capture and sequestration, MSW – municipal solid waste, CC – combined cycle gas plants

image

For comparison, EPA’s analysis last summer of the Waxman/Markey House bill projected the need for 262 GW of nuclear power by 2050 (187 new plants if all existing retire at 60). In that analysis, nuclear is projected to supply 41% of total US electricity, more than any other source (data also found in the zip folder).

From EPA’s APA analysis: “Overall, the estimated impacts of the APA are very similar to those of H.R. 2454 [Waxman/Markey]”.

Not much else to say…

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Why do policy documents continue to treat Carbon Capture as a developed technology. Is any real work even going on in this area? It can hardly compare to nuclear with the enormous amount of world-wide experience.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…