Skip to main content

Guest Post: Nuclear Energy’s Value Proposition Still Strong, Will Reassert Itself in Next Decade

J. Scott Peterson
The following guest post was written by J. Scott Peterson, NEI's senior vice president, communications.

NEW YORK CITY—Despite challenging electricity markets and natural gas prices at a 13-year low, industry leaders are confident in the long-term prospects for nuclear energy and its contributions to the electricity mix and U.S. economic growth.

On average, America’s 104 commercial reactors are the most efficient power producers on the grid—operating at 86 percent capacity factor. Capacity factor is a measure of efficiency, with a 100-percent rating equaling full power production 24/7, 365 days. Absent reactors in California, Florida and Nebraska that have been closed virtually all year for extended maintenance, the capacity factor at the other 100 reactors was just shy of 90 percent.

“We continue to invest in these facilities to preserve their asset value,” NEI President and CEO Marv Fertel told nearly 200 financial analysts and journalists at the Institute’s annual briefing in New York. “We want them in position to operate beyond 40 years—perhaps more than 60 years—and to incorporate new upgrades to maintain the highest possible level of safety.”

Depressed natural gas prices, which set electricity prices in many markets, and flat electricity demand are putting near-term pressure on some nuclear energy facilities in deregulated markets. But Fertel and industry leaders are focusing on nuclear energy’s role providing fuel diversity in the electric sector for the longer-term and the value chain of nuclear energy that extends beyond low-cost, reliable power production.

“Our plans must be flexible to adapt to high- and low-price markets and must balance short- and long-term views,” Entergy Corp. CEO Leo Denault told analysts Feb. 8. He added that Entergy, which operates 12 reactors, would continue to advocate for markets that value nuclear energy’s added value: “a source of clean energy with effectively zero emissions, grid reliability…fuel diversity, and jobs and other contributions to the regional economy.”

Fertel echoed Denault’s value chain for nuclear energy on Thursday. “Low-carbon, baseload electricity is a crucial element of sustainable development and it is why many nations are building or planning to build more nuclear energy facilities. The value proposition for nuclear energy is still strong and will reassert itself as we move beyond the near term.”

Recognition of this value chain is growing among policymakers, environmental leaders and consumers. Eighty-one percent of U.S. adults in a Feb. 8-10 survey by Bisconti Research/GfK said nuclear energy is important to America’s electricity mix.

That value chain includes:
  • Production of large quantities of electricity around the clock—nearly 770 billion kilowatt-hours in 2012;
  • Job creation, including thousands of jobs at new reactor projects in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee and a doubling of uranium enrichment production in New Mexico;
  • Providing clean air compliance, including the prevention of controlled emissions under the Clean Air Act and reducing the carbon compliance burden that would otherwise fall on natural gas and coal-fired power plant;
  • Providing voltage support to the grid;
  • Providing forward power price stability, particularly for large industrial users of electricity;
  • Contributing to fuel and technology diversity that is one of the foundations of America’s reliable and resilient electric sector.
“We continue to believe that our [nuclear] assets are some of the lowest-cost, most dispatchable baseload assets,” Exelon CEO Christopher Crane told The Chicago Tribune on Feb. 8.

Nuclear energy facilities are increasingly important for fuel diversity as natural gas use for electricity generation grows. In Florida, where more than 60 percent of electricity is produced by burning natural gas, Florida Power and Light recently completed uprates totaling 490 megawatts at its Turkey Point and St. Lucie reactors. Based on the FPL’s latest projected price of fuel and other factors, this investment is projected to save customers $3.8 billion on fossil fuel costs that otherwise would have been used over their operating lifetime.

“This value proposition will become increasingly self-evident and will drive a bright long-term future for nuclear energy,” said Fertel.

Comments

David E Grider said…
This rosy scenario ignores the cost to deal with the hazardous waste produced. At present the costs of dealing with some of the worst pollution the world has ever seen are being ignored.

California has shown that electricity demand can be leveled at reasonable cost. In the US, conservation and efficiency are much more cost effective than building any new power plants.
By the time this situation changes (at about ½ the energy per dollar of GDP that presently obtains), the cost of nuclear will have increased more, and the cost of wind and solar will have decreased some more. Before a new nuclear plant can be completed in the US, the levelized cost of wind and solar will be lower than that of nuclear (averaged over a 25 year life cycle), making investment in nuclear very risky.
Anonymous said…
Nobel Prise winner Richard Smalley postulated that as much as 3 Terra Watts of solar energy could be generated by paving over the American southwest. So we are all set for the day time!
David Bradish said…
This rosy scenario ignores the cost to deal with the hazardous waste produced.

Actually, since the 1980s, the nuclear industry pays about $750 million each year to the Nuclear Waste Fund to manage its used fuel. The fund has collected and earned over $30 billion to date.

Before a new nuclear plant can be completed in the US, the levelized cost of wind and solar will be lower than that of nuclear (averaged over a 25 year life cycle), making investment in nuclear very risky.

That sounds like a rosy scenario to me. Does your analysis include the costs of managing solar's toxic wastes?

It's interesting how a 25 year life cycle is pointed out in the cost analysis. I guess over a new nuclear plant's 60-80 year lifespan, we'll have to replace wind and solar plants at least three times. Is that included somewhere in the cost analyses?

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…