Skip to main content

Investment Banks Begin Counting Carbon in New Power Plant Costs

Leading investment banks have begun to incorporate estimates for the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the cost of building new power plant projects, a move that would increase the competitiveness of new nuclear plants.

According to this approach, banks would impose additional costs on plants that produce carbon dioxide, such as those powered by fossil fuels. The federal government does not impose a tax or other measure to account for the cost of emitting carbon dioxide, but the banks clearly believe measures to regulate greenhouse gases are imminent.

"We have decided, as have other banks, to start assessing the cost of carbon in our risk and underwriting processes as we evaluate the business models of utility sector companies. In the absence of federal legislation, we estimate the cost will fall between $20 to $40 per ton of carbon dioxide," Ken Lewis, Bank of America's chairman and CEO, told attendees at a Feb. 12 energy conference in North Carolina.

The imposition of these costs would increase the cost of coal-fired power plants, but Lewis said that he believed that coal plants would remain in use for years to come. Nuclear power plants would not be affected by such a charge because they do not produce carbon dioxide while generating electricity.

Earlier this month, investment banks Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley announced they will begin factoring the cost of greenhouse gas emissions into new power plant proposals.

The announcement was part of a partnership with energy companies, including DTE Energy, NRG Energy, PSEG and Southern Co., to create an approach for evaluating and addressing carbon risk in financing power projects.

This partnership, which also included Environmental Defense and Natural Resources Defense Council, released guidelines for dealing with the uncertainties surrounding regional and national climate change policy.

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. Nuclear power plants have been paying a tax to the federal government for years to manage their used fuel. That the government, hamstrung by Congress, has failed to do that is a great pity. The greatest obstacle I see to effective used fuel management is the fact that Congress has mandated that the Department of Energy take responsibility, but failed to pass on the resources provided by the utilities for that purpose. Congress has seen the fuel management fund as a giant trough, and they've had their snouts and trotters in that trough for so long they don't want to get them out.

Maybe its time to learn from the experience of other countries and set up a specialized fuel management company, either owned by the federal government or jointly by the nuclear utilities, which is mandated to manage used fuel. This of course would require Congress releasing its death grip on the purse strings.

Public accountability is a good thing, and any company established to manage used nuclear fuel should be regulated by the NRC and be subject to public scrutiny. I don't think we are vigorous enough in holding Congress accountable for its inaction in this regard.

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 …