Skip to main content

Why Building Too Much Natural Gas Capacity to Generate Electricity Could Come Back to Haunt Florida

NEI VP Richard Myers
About a week ago, the Tampa Bay Times published an analysis by Ivan Penn claiming that ratepayers in Florida would be better served if Duke Energy built a natural gas plant in place of a proposed nuclear energy facility in Levy County. Over the weekend, that same paper published a letter to the editor by NEI's Richard Myers taking issue with that conclusion:
Nuclear plants offer benefits

The May 12 article "Levy nuclear plant more costly than a natural gas facility" fails to account for the economic and environmental benefits the two nuclear plants would bring to Florida. Progress Energy Florida, now Duke Energy Florida, determined in 2008 that the Levy nuclear plants would benefit the state by providing fuel diversity and price stability for consumers while avoiding air emissions.

In 2012, Florida generated 68 percent of its electricity from natural gas, a significant increase from 47 percent in 2008. Floridians may recall that in 2008 and 2009, the state endured its highest-ever electricity costs when natural gas prices were hitting all-time highs. Five years later, Florida relies even more on natural gas.

Just like a diversified financial portfolio is important for investors, so is a diversified energy portfolio for consumers. By relying ever more heavily on natural gas, Florida is putting itself in an increasingly vulnerable position if and when natural gas prices change.

Further, if natural gas plants are built instead of the two Levy nuclear plants, the gas plants will consume nearly 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and emit more than 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over 60 years.

The Levy nuclear plants will help Florida manage and balance any future that includes changes in carbon regulations and natural gas fuel costs, and an overreliance on any one form of electricity generation.

Richard Myers
Vice President
Nuclear Energy Institute
This isn't the first time Richard has addressed this issue. Back in January, he took issue with a piece in the Wall Street Journal that concluded that the natural gas boomlet we're currently experiencing might undo nuclear energy. The key takeaway here: nothing is forever, and that goes double for natural gas prices.

Comments

onyerleft said…
Today in Bloomberg:

"Natural Gas Climbs for Second Day on Outlook for Hot Weather,

Natural gas futures advanced for a second day in New York on forecasts for above-normal temperatures that would boost demand for the power-plant fuel to run air conditioners...The futures jumped the most in three weeks on May 17 after the U.S. conditionally approved the Freeport LNG liquefied natural gas export project in Texas."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-20/natural-gas-rises-5-from-week-ago-as-u-s-approves-lng-exports.html

Whoever didn't see this coming, probably should have seen it coming.
Anonymous said…
How do daily fluctuations in the futures market speak to long-term price trends? That's like denying global warming because it's chilly on Thursday.
Anonymous said…
Short-term price variations can have various effects in the market and for end users. Utilities that have winter-peaking demand mostly use short-term contracts for seasonal supply, negotiated anywhere from one month prior to delivery out to one year. A good example might be the purchase in June of a futures contract for December delivery. Utilities enter into numerous short-term contracts with different pipeline suppliers for different delivery dates in order to ensure a reliable supply of natural gas at competitive rates for their customers.

Short-term variations have a fairly significant impact on the "spot" price. The spot market is a source of natural gas that is needed within a matter of days rather than months. The spot market allows local natural gas utilities to respond quickly to changing weather or other market conditions, or local problems with delivery, storage, and use rate. The spot market is especially sensitive to changing market conditions and spot market prices quickly respond to changes in weather or availability of supply.

A small amount of natural gas that utilities use during the winter heating season is contracted for under “long-term contracts” – contracts that are negotiated one year or more in advance of physical delivery of the natural gas.

Like all commodity markets, speculative buying and selling often moves the prices paid for futures contracts. Speculators are particularly attuned to changes in supply and demand, so if there is a broad-based perception that the demand side will remain strong with no counterbalance in supply, short-term prices will be the first to reflect the long-term trend.

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 …