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

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…