Skip to main content

Why Saving New York's Nuclear Reactors is Good for Consumers & The Environment

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Saving the reactors is good for consumers and good for the environment.

Independent analyses show that the modest payments needed to keep nuclear reactors in the state’s supply mix will mean sharply lower electricity prices, and are the cheapest way to hold down carbon emissions.

The Brattle Group, a consulting firm that specializes in energy, found that electricity in New York would cost $1.7 billion a year extra if the reactors closed. The reason is that the reactors’ output would be replaced by more expensive power.

This is inherent in the method that New York uses to set prices: a computer totals up all the available resources, ranked by price, and the level of demand. The computer, which belongs to the New York State Independent System Operator, determines which generators are needed to satisfy demand, and whatever price is asked by the most expensive generator to make the cut, that’s what all generators get.

Nuclear plants bid in very low, because their fuel costs are low. Remove a low-cost generator from the bottom of the stack, and the last plant to make the cut is sure to be more expensive.

And preserving the reactors is the least expensive way to hold down carbon emissions, according to another independent assessment, by the New York Independent System Operator’s market monitor. (A market monitor is a consulting firm hired by an independent system operator to report on how well the system is working.)

New Yorkers protested in favor of saving Upstate nuclear plants.
The 2015 report of New York’s market monitor found that saving a ton of carbon dioxide emissions by retaining a nuclear plant would cost $20 to $43 a ton; using utility-scale solar (the least expensive type) would cost $115 a ton. A new on-shore wind farm would cost $41 per ton saved.

Solar and wind have their place but they do not stabilize the system as nuclear power does, and they do not provide the tax revenue and highly-paid jobs that reactors do. They also provide electricity at times of nature’s choosing, out of sync with demand.

In addition, preserving the nuclear capacity is a hedge against interruptions in fuel supply, like frozen coal piles, or the Aliso Canyon gas storage leak, or the pipeline squeezes that have hit the northeast during polar vortices. The value of that diversity is harder to express in dollars and cents but is certainly a factor.

And one other consideration: $482 million is a lot of money, and it would certainly pay our MasterCard bill many times over. But as a share of the statewide electric bill it is small. According to the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration, New York’s electric bill in 2013 (the last year for which complete numbers are available) was fifty times larger, $24 billion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?