Skip to main content

Why The Economics Don't Work for Kewaunee Anymore

NEI VP Richard Myers
Over the past 24 hours, we've seen a number of folks online ask the question of why it's no longer economically feasible for Dominion to continue to operate the Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin. Earlier today, I put the question to Richard Myers, NEI's Vice President, Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs. Here's what he wrote back:
In 2005, when Dominion bought the plant: (1) power prices in the Midwest were in the $40-50/MWhr range; wellhead gas prices were in the $6-10 per million Btu range; and U.S. electricity demand was growing.

Today: (1) power prices in the Midwest are in the $30/MWhr range: gas prices are in the $2-3 per million Btu range; and (3) the U.S. has had 5 years of no growth in electricity demand, thanks to the worst recession in 80 years.
Thanks to Richard for laying out the numbers for us. For a statement from NEI's Marv Fertel on the decision to close Kewaunee, click here. For a a quote from an RBS research note that defended the decision, click here.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
None of those 'today' numbers are likely to apply 'tomorrow'.
Engineer-Poet said…
There is a shakeout coming in the natural gas industry.  The bubble in shale gas is popping already, and demand is set to surge as heavy trucks start to switch from diesel to LNG.  The breakeven cost of shale gas is around $8/mmBTU, which is where the price will be within a couple of years.  If LNG export terminals open, North American NG prices will likely rise again to within a couple dollars of the world price (currently around $15/mmBTU).

Given this, closing Kewaunee because of the short-term price situation is extremely short-sighted.  I hope some patient capital is willing to buy the plant and keep it open, because it will be well-rewarded in just a few years.
Anonymous said…
Still seems short-sighted, apparently ignoring the historical volatility of gas in the context of economic recovery in the US and beyond.
Anonymous said…
It seems short-sighted both economically in terms of the historical volatility of NG prices, and also strategically for a robust and diverse mixture of generating assets. There may come a day when NG is in short supply (and therefore expensive) and we will wish we had a zero-emissions source of capacity like Kawuanee. But there is no going back from decommissioning. Once you trash and rip down that asset, it is gone forever.
Alex said…
When Dominion bought Kewaunee, I wondered what they were going to do with it. It was part of, I seem to remember, a three plant deal.
Dominion is an East Coast company and they have this plant on the other side of Lake Mchigan.
It would make more sense for another company to take over this plant.

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 …

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…

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…