Skip to main content

The Perils of an Energy Panacea in New England

Nuclear engineer Howard Shaffer may be an interested party, but he points out in an op-ed in the Concord (N.H.) Monitor that New England really needs to diversify its energy supply more. Why? Because cold New England winters are exposing fault lines in the energy supply.

At one point last winter, during the polar vortex, 75 percent of New England’s natural-gas generating capacity was not operating due to lack of supply or high prices. Public Service of New Hampshire resorted to burning costly jet fuel to meet the demand for electricity, while the price of oil rose to more than $400 per barrel.

Jet fuel! If that doesn’t speak to desperation, nothing does. Shaffer plumps for nuclear energy, as would be his wont:

Nuclear plants are a dependable source of electricity, because they produce “base-load” power about 90 percent of the time, underpinning the stability of the electricity grid. But currently, New England’s deregulated electricity market does not recognize nuclear power’s environmental value or its critically important role in maintaining power reliability.

And he’s absolutely right. I’m sure other kinds of engineers might make similar arguments for their favored energy sources, but natural gas in particular isn’t as stable for New England as it is for more temperate regions, and it’s really put a crimp in the energy profile down east. As we demonstrated earlier this week (see post below), nuclear energy in New England stood up exceptionally well, with many plants operating at 100 percent capacity.

Shaffer’s comments couldn’t come at a better time.


And what Shaffer is saying is getting broader play. Consider this editorial from the Bangor (Maine) Daily News:

The reactor’s shutdown [referring to Vermont Yankee] has implications for Maine’s electric ratepayers since it accelerates New England’s growing dependence on a single source — natural gas — for electricity, a phenomenon that has meant higher electricity prices this winter.


“Going forward, we are concerned about the impact of [losing] non-natural-gas-fired generation in the region,” ISO New England spokeswoman Marcia Blomberg told The Boston Globe.

As well they should be.


And not to gild the lily or anything, but from MassLive:

New England will see an upward trend in electricity prices until the region adds more energy infrastructure -- including power generators, transmission upgrades, natural gas pipeline capacity, and fuel storage -- ISO New England president and CEO Gordon van Welie told reporters in a "state of the grid" briefing Wednesday.


When natural gas prices are low, the region's gas-fired generators are dispatched more often because ISO dispatches the lowest-cost generators first. During the coldest days of the winter, when the plants can't get enough natural gas, they turn to higher-priced alternatives such as oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG), driving up the price of electricity, said Van Welie. Older, dirtier plants that burn coal or oil are called into service during such periods of peak demand, he said.

Natural gas a panacea? Yes, well… – and we’re leaving carbon dioxide emissions to the side for this discussion.

If you think nuclear energy won’t be a major part of of the solution here, may I introduce you to Howard Shaffer. He – and we – cannot see another way out of this growing impasse. Jet fuel!


We should note, for those who don’t know, that ISO New England is “the federally-regulated, independent organization which dispatches power plants over six states, administers wholesale energy markets, and works to ensure grid reliability. ISO stands for ‘Independent System Operator.’” More about the ISO system here.


martin burkle said…
"As we demonstrated earlier this week (see post below), nuclear energy in New England stood up exceptionally well, with many plants operating at 100 percent capacity."

During the polar vortex couldn't we say that ALL nuclear plants operated instead of MANY?
Paul Jacobson said…
As a reporter in New Hampshire in the late 70's and early 80's I watched the politicians, including then Mass. Atty. Gen. Ed Markey, do everything the could to thwart construction of Seabrook. Stupid then. Huge consequences now, as my 82-year0old mother on a fixed income in Manchester NH watches her electricity bill go sky high. You reap what you sow.
Anonymous said…
"During the polar vortex couldn't we say that ALL nuclear plants operated instead of MANY?"

No, because that's not accurate.
Meredith Angwin said…
Terrific article by Howard and a great post here. Both pieces pull together a great deal of information on our overly-gas-dependent grid.

Martin. The Pilgrim plant was at the brunt of the storm. It was fine of couse, but the lines went down, it lost connection to the grid, so it was off line. A coal plant would have had to do the same. Can't run them unless they are connected!
Anonymous said…
Also, Calvert Cliffs units 1 and 2 experienced a double scram due to ice and snow on January 21.
Anonymous said…
Also, Calvert Cliffs units 1 and 2 experienced a double scram due to ice and snow on January 21.

Not True!
Anonymous said…
Sorry for the confusion; I misunderstood an earlier comment. This winter is certainly cold, but not a polar vortex event. That was in 2014, as was the double scram at Calvert Cliffs during that vortex, due to snow and ice.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…