Skip to main content

TVA: An “industry leader in the transition to cleaner energy?”

There’s been some talk of privatizing the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, though it comes in the form of President Obama’s 2014 budget request and then only as a suggestion to look at TVA’s overall situation. Southern politicians love TVA on a bipartisan basis, so such efforts rarely move far. As always, we’ll see.

But the notion has led to some stories – here’s one – about a University of Tennessee study that concludes TVA would have to be sold to several prospective buyers to avoid a monopoly situation. You can read the study to see the answer to the study’s title, “Should the Federal Government Sell TVA?”

Energy Biz has an interesting Q&A up with TVA President and CEO Bill Johnson:

ENERGYBIZ: How important will nuclear power be to TVA in coming years?

Johnson: By 2023, our generation will be about 35 percent nuclear, 30 to 35 percent coal, 20 percent gas, and then the rest hydro and renewables.

Hydro power is probably the key when it comes to TVA, since its creation in 1935 led to the large federal role in hydro (TVA has 29 hydro facilities) that it does not have in other electricity generators. The invisible hand bypasses that part of the energy portfolio. Not much to say about that – except that it makes some sense because of hydro’s interaction with rivers and dams.

But back to nuclear. Aside from the new reactors in Georgia (at Vogtle) and South Carolina (Summer), TVA is finishing the long halted Watts Bar 2 project. Those will be the five reactors built in the U.S. in the teens.

ENERGYBIZ: You are also testing development of small modular reactors.

Johnson: Part of our mission by law is innovation in energy technology.  So the small modular reactor to us is nuclear innovation and technology. We are in a consortium or partnership with Babcock & Wilcox called mPower, and we have qualified with the DOE for funding. It is a cost-sharing arrangement.  We are the first people out of the box on this, closely aligned with the DOE and industry to see how this concept works.

Johnson admits that there are aspects of small reactors that remain unknown for now – such as their security needs versus full-sized reactors – but I like that he attaches the project to fulfilling TVA’s mission. It does do that and gives small reactors a decided boost.

Interestingly, The Knoxville News-Sentinel links these moves to President Barack Obama’s climate change speech last week, at least in passing.

Nuclear power — which does not release carbon into the atmosphere — is part of the mix as well. TVA is adding a reactor to its Watts Bar plant and is seeking regulatory approval for a modular reactor plant to be built in Oak Ridge.

And:

TVA already is upgrading pollution controls on its [coal-fired] power plants. The federal utility plans to spend about $1 billion on controls at its Gallatin Fossil Plant, which should reduce emissions by 90 percent. TVA also plans to retire 18 units at its 11 coal-fired power plants by 2018.

The utility is using more natural gas, too. There are 106 natural gas units at 13 sites spread across TVA’s service area.

This gives Johnson’s 2035 numbers more context.

The gist of the editorial is that energy providers need to change priorities to meet the president’s goals and that TVA is ahead of the games.

The transformation to a cleaner power industry will take time and will challenge utilities to reduce emissions while keeping rates low. We are confident they are up to the task. TVA already is changing, and is positioning itself to be an industry leader in the transition to cleaner energy.

Sounds good to me. Utilities can have pretty fractious relationships with localities, but that’s not the case here.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Ontario isn't 'upgrading pollution controls on its [coal-fired] power plants', they are closing them. Refurbishing plants and planning new ones. The air quality has seen a noticeable improvement. Here is an ad by Bruce Power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWaWUVlRtCU&feature=player_embedded
The TVA needs to set a good example for other utilities by selling all of its fossil fuel power plants.

The TVA could then use the revenue from those sales to finance the building of small nuclear power plants and carbon neutral methanol electric power plants.

The methanol power plants would initially be fueled with renewable methanol produced from urban and rural biowaste.

But in the long run, nuclear power plants dedicated to producing methanol from the synthesis of nuclear produced hydrogen and CO2 extracted from air would produce most of the methanol for peak-load power production.

Marcel F. Williams
Anonymous said…
TVA can't sell its coal plants to build nuclear because even if they sold every coal unit they own it still wouldn't be enough to pay for a single new nuclear plant. Nobody is going to spend a lot of money to buy a bunch of 40-60 year old coal units most of which will have to be shut down soon if Obama's energy policy becomes law.

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …