Skip to main content

How Swapping Coal for Renewables Equals Nuclear Energy

xcel-energyElectricity diversity is a defining value for utilities that maintain a reliable, stable supply. This is helpful in foul weather and in other situations, of course, but it’s also allows a utility to respond to new priorities.

That’s what Xcel is doing in Minnesota (via the Rochester (Minn.) Post-Bulletin):

Xcel Energy on Friday filed plans with state regulators that would shut down part of the state's largest coal-fired power plant.

Why?

Sherco's two older units would retire in 2023 and 2026 as part of the plan, which also calls for 1,200 megawatts of renewable energy, including a new 50 megawatt solar installation at the site of the Sherco plant in Becker.

Sherco is short for Sherburne County Generating Station. It has three coal units and Xcel intends to build a new natural gas facility there. 

And nuclear energy?

While two of Sherco's three coal units will retire, Xcel plans to keep running its two nuclear plants at Monticello and Prairie Island through 2030.

Obviously, the Clean Power Plan is the motivation behind all of this – I’d add the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which isn’t mentioned, but has impacted a lot of coal facilities - but Xcel is also ensuring that it has sufficient baseload power to cover the intermittency of wind and solar energy.

If a utility has a full deck of energy sources, it has the flexibility to answer to society’s current needs without causing undue stress on the electricity grid. In the current instance, Xcel has explicitly mentioned that it will keep its nuclear plants open. That makes sense, because nuclear energy is CO2 emission free and thus fits Xcel’s goal of reducing its carbon emissions 60 percent by 2030.

We weren’t expecting a case study on the value of energy diversity this soon – and it’s not by a longshot the only value demonstrated in Xcel’s announcement - but there you go. I wonder if Xcel’s announcement will make other utilities think: can building a nuclear facility increase my options while reducing emissions? Short answer: Yes, yes it can.

Comments

Russ Finley said…
"...baseload power to cover the intermittency of wind and solar energy."

Baseload power cannot be used to cover the intermittency of wind and solar. We really don't have a low-carbon answer for that problem.

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…