Skip to main content

Valuing Nuclear Assets in A National Energy Review

nuclear-power-plant President Obama in January directed the heads of nearly two dozen federal agencies to create an integrated review of U.S. energy policy “in the context of economic, environmental, occupational, security, and health and safety priorities.”

The task force is charged with developing “integrated guidance to strengthen U.S. energy policy,” building on the administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future and Climate Action Plan. The first of the quadrennial energy reviews is due this coming January. It will be updated every four years thereafter, if future administrations continue with it.

Quadrennial might sound like a old European dance (that’s a quadrille), but it’s a kind of roadmap timed to occur near the mid-point of an administration’s term. Even if the review is based on administration priorities that the next president does not follow, it will encourage continuity and transparency in energy policy.

Public comments were due October 10. NEI submitted a few, focusing on several points, including the review’s focus.

[T]his first-ever review will focus on energy infrastructure and will identify the threats, risks, and opportunities for U.S. energy and climate security, enabling the federal government to translate policy goals into a set of integrated actions.

And NEI’s response:

Although DOE has indicated that the first edition of the QER focuses on infrastructure, NEI does not believe it is possible or prudent to separate delivery from supply and production, particularly in the electric sector. It is not possible to examine transmission of electricity or natural gas in isolation without also examining, for example, the number and locations of the power plants that might need natural gas.

Of course, NEI is most interested in the role of nuclear energy in the electricity market, but not considering energy generators impacts them all, denying them the value they bring to the marketplace. An energy review that ignores this risks being of limited use.

Sound competitive market design should follow basic economic principles and begin with a systematic inventory of the attributes of the various forms of electric generating capacity that have value to the grid. Then the competitive markets should develop mechanisms to provide compensation for those attributes. Unless and until these attributes are recognized and priced, markets run the risk that they will gradually disappear.

Some of those attributes are obvious for nuclear energy: carbon-emission free, non-stop baseload energy that can be very inexpensive to run. NEI’s response expands on several of these qualities, notably how nuclear energy fulfills the energy review’s specific concerns:

Affordable, clean, and secure energy and energy services are essential for improving U.S. economic productivity, enhancing our quality of life, protecting our environment, and ensuring our Nation's security.

With a tweak here and there, this could be the mission statement of the nuclear energy industry. We’ll see how the final report goes when it emerges in January.

Comments

trag said…
Yet another opportunity for Holdren or Moniz's chief of staff to stuff the committee with corrupt anti-nuclear shills and cook the report.

Similar to what happened with the EPA CO2 goals, where after independent review, it's found, surprise!, that the framework of the plan actually encourages utilities to shut down nuclear generators and replace them with natural gas.

I can't tell if Obama is lying or just clueless, but his administration is definitely working behind the scenes to hamstring nuclear.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…