Skip to main content

Virginia's Energy Plan

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has just released his state energy policy, and while the media coverage doesn't talk much about the role of nuclear energy, our old friend Lisa Stiles says in a note that the details of the report are another story entirely:
The article in the Times Dispatch doesn't talk much about nuclear other than the issue of uranium mining, but if you go through the actual plan (PDF) there is plenty of discussion. All in all I'm impressed with this Democratic governor's embrace of nuclear as one of Virginia's core energy assets, though there are a few lines here and there that rankle me (operational costs [for] nuclear are higher than solar and wind?).
Interesting stuff. Again, click here (PDF) for a copy of the plan.

Comments

Anonymous said…
the story probably doesn't discuss nuclear much beyond uranium because the Virginia energy plan says that any new nuclear plants built in the state would be outside the 10-year time horizon of the plan, and hence are not considered in the plan.
Lisa Stiles said…
That's true, but nuclear is discussed extensively throughout the document in sections like Ch 2 on Energy Resources (where the "core strength" quote is), Ch 4 on Energy Infrastructure, Ch 6 on Energy R&D, and there is a recommendation related specifically to nuclear.

I would have thought that if they read the report the media would pounce on a statement like:

"Virginia has unique assets in the nuclear industry that provide an opportunity for it to be the leader in nuclear energy."

I'm lovin' it!
Lisa
Rod Adams said…
I think that there were several writers for the report, some of whom might not have talked to each other. For example, on page 49 under the heading of Role of New Technologies, there is the following sentence: "Near term generation options include clean coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and waste and biomass."

Also, on page 18, under the heading of Nuclear Infrastructure, there is the following statement - "New nuclear energy production is not expected to come on line over the ten-year term of this Plan. However, a new nuclear power plant may be under construction during the term of this plan and come on-line shortly thereafter."

As Lisa has pointed out, there are a number of places where Virginia's unique nuclear assets are mentioned. The report is quite clear about the value of developing those assets in a time of growing interest in nuclear power around the world. As a potential customer of that Lynchburg cluster that is mentioned, I think that is great news.

In the all important Executive Summary, however, there is the following statement - "New nuclear power generation, hydrogen, methane hydrates and ocean power are beyond the ten-year scope of this plan." I would bet a nice chunk of money that the Executive Summary was written by a shy PR type who advised a more cautious stance than the actual report.

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should