Skip to main content

Investing in Powerhouses

raymond-scott The Washington Post tried a front page story about nuclear energy – and if you develop a higher profile, as nuclear energy has done, then newspapers are going to take a closer look at you. We expect that and in truth the story isn’t bad.

For nuclear energy followers, the news isn’t very new at all:

In states such as Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, utilities have won permission to charge customers for some of the cost of new reactors while construction is still in progress -- a financing technique that would save utilities a couple of billion dollars for each reactor. Previously, utilities had to wait until power plants were in operation before raising rates, as they still do in most states.

This is CWIP, or Construction Work in Progress, approved by legislators in some states and not in others. The salient point behind it is that a utility can recoup interest charges and thus not suffer interest on top of interest – and thus, its customers don’t suffer it either. The Post gets to this, though much later in the story:

Southern Co. said the [CWIP] law passed in 2000 will help its Georgia Power subsidiary shave nearly $2 billion off the cost of the two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site -- and Georgia Power owns only 45 percent of the project.

That’s only to the good. One could argue that companies should shoulder the burden alone, but with utilities, it never works out that way – the ratepayer will see the cost one way or another. Finding a way to contain interest charges is, in our view, a net good – certainly arguable from multiple perspectives, but in sum, a deal for the ratepayer.

The cost of a plant is really the focus of the Post article, but there’s really nothing new about that – to us, that is – though it provides interesting material to the general reader. We found its attempt at balance a bit funny:

"It's a terrible idea," said Jim Clarkson, a consultant with Resource Supply Management, a Georgia firm that advises companies on how to reduce electricity use. "We've had decades of subsidies for nuclear plants and all sorts of preferential treatment. They still require loan guarantees because the smart money won't touch them."

"Nuclear power is very important," says John W. McWhirter, who represents the Florida Industrial Power Users Group. "We just wish consumers could be protected."

As David Bradish pointed out here awhile ago, subsidies (if you define them fairly broadly) flow across the energy spectrum and not overwhelmingly to nuclear energy projects. Making it seem unique to nuclear projects really isn’t honest – and that’s even if we let loan guarantees into our definition of subsidies.

---

In a way, what we’re doing is living on borrowed infrastructure, last built out during construction of the national freeway system 60 years ago, and providing for subsequent generations relatively inexpensive public works – including energy plants. Consider the following:

Demands for energy, wood, minerals, cement and cars [go] up and up. … This growth has placed intense demands on China’s highways, which the government is dealing with by spending 9 percent of GDP on modernizing infrastructure.

Contrast that 9 percent with the less than 1 percent of GDP the United States invests (and most of that through the states) and ingenious solutions for putting up a few plants – like CWIP – gain considerable appeal. If the United States means to remain an economic powerhouse (allowing for the developing and developed status of China and the U.S.), it needs to invest – or make it plausible for private capital to invest - in some actual powerhouses.

Raymond Scott (1908 – 1994) was a bandleader, composer and tinkerer in electronic instruments. His music had a novelty-like appeal to it, being lively and original if also quite eccentric. Probably his best known piece (to modern audiences) is the two part Powerhouse and that’s because both parts were used very frequently to score Warner Bros. cartoons, often to represent factories working along (notably baby factories staffed by drunken, mis-delivering storks.) You can learn more about Scott and hear his version of Powerhouse here.

Comments

Sterling Archer said…
The biggest subsidy in the energy industry is how coal weasels out of responsibility for the thousands of Americans its emission kill and maim each year. Is Robert Byrd still alive?

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…