Skip to main content

The Nuclear Year 2014

babytime Years end, as everything finds an ending. Vermont Yankee is ending its 42-year run. Nuclear energy, which generated 70 percent of Vermont’s electricity, is ending in the Green Mountain state – as the year ends – as everything finds an ending.

But you don’t need to see the old feller of 2014 shuffling off as the 2015 babe supplants him to know that endings portend beginnings. Vermont Yankee is closing because it is not making enough money, not because it has ceased to be an effective supplier of clean energy. Under the proposed EPA rules regulating  carbon dioxide  from electricity generators, Vermont is the only state that did not have to reduce emissions at all – in large part due to Vermont Yankee (hydro supplies most of the remaining 30 percent, so Vermont had a particularly good emissions profile).

So now Vermont will turn to its neighbors New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Quebec to fill the gaps in its energy portfolio – some of that may be nuclear, but a lot of it likely will not be. Wouldn’t it have been better if Vermont Yankee worth included its emission-free quality? Shouldn’t the energy market reflect that since it will be so important in 2015 and beyond?

If anything defines the nuclear year in review, it is these two issues: nuclear energy plants became (or threaten to become) financially untenable; and nuclear energy is even more valuable now than it has ever been, specifically because it can reliably produce 70 percent of a state’s electricity emissions-free. Whatever your view on the existential peril of climate change, nuclear energy is the only solution we now have that can supply tremendous amounts of electricity – with a relatively small footprint – 24/7 - and with no harmful emissions.

This isn’t just a U.S. issue. Installed nuclear energy capacity worldwide could nearly triple from today’s 375 gigawatts to as much as 1,092 gigawatts by 2050 if nations recognize it as the best and least expensive means to address the threat of climate change.

This statistic comes from an International Atomic Energy Agency report, “Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2014.” The report “indicates that nuclear power represents the largest single mitigation potential at the lowest average costs.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not focused on nuclear energy as the IAEA is, notes that raising the percentage of global nuclear energy capacity from 16 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2030 could avoid 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalence per year.

The IAEA and IPCC are both United Nations organizations. One feature of 2014 is a surprising unanimity among energy policy reports, governmental and otherwise, nuclear-centered and not, that nuclear energy should be expanded – rapidly, starting now. No one has given up on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, but if one believes time is running out, as the IPCC certainly does, then one defaults to the mature technology. That’s nuclear energy.

In many countries, this isn’t an issue at all. China, Russia, India and many other countries with nuclear industries are accelerating their construction plans. Countries such as Vietnam, UAE and Turkey are preparing to open first reactors. And many other countries – including in Africa and South America – are looking at partnerships and deals to get a productive chain reaction going.

The U.S. is hampered somewhat by its appreciation for low-cost natural gas and its continuing romance with renewable energy. Neither of these are bad things, though they cause a loss of valuation for nuclear energy. It’s the energy market that needs reforming.

This is becoming more broadly recognized, as much because of nuclear energy’s reliability as its emissions profile. PJM Interconnection, one of the nation’s largest regional transmission operators, is seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to implement a “capacity performance initiative” aimed at improving reliability of the regional electricity system. What FERC does is going to be a major story in 2015.

Consider: under current market rules, nuclear energy facilities are not compensated for their secure fuel supply, while generators that run short of fuel are not penalized.This became notable during last year’s polar vortex, when gas and coal froze up but nuclear energy facilities continued unabated. PJM doesn’t cite this (as far as I can tell). You can read more about this here.

And did we mention that a new U.S. reactor is opening in 2015? Goodbye Father Vermont Yankee, hello Baby Watts Bar. Endings portend beginnings.

---

NEI’s comments on Vermont Yankee can be found here. Entergy explains its decision to close the plant here.

---

Is that all there is to say about 2014? Oh, no. We’ll round up some of the interesting events of an eventful year next week.

Comments

jimwg said…
Happy New Year!

Say what one might about Greenpeace, no clams they like the nuclear community, they know how to get their message out to the masses in spades. This war of nuclear acceptance can only be won by aggressive self-promotion and mass education. It is not Saturn-5 science. It's "Mad Men" common sense.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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 …