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

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 …