Cheap Natural Gas, Stagnant Power Demand, and Power Prices That

Cheap Natural Gas, Stagnant Power Demand, and Power Prices That

Cheap natural gas, stagnant power demand, and power prices that have fallen significantly since 2008 have jeopardized the economics of about two-thirds of the nation’s 100-GW nuclear capacity, according to a working paper from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. About 21 GW in merchant deregulated markets are retiring, or are at high risk of retiring the paper suggests. Here’s a profitability outlook for all 61 nuclear plants in the U.S. over the short term (between 2017 and 2019), according to the research entity. Source: “Early Nuclear Retirements in Deregulated U.S. Markets: Causes, Implications and Policy Options,” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (March 2017) —Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor. Millstone 14.8 Seabrook 14.0 Nine Mile Point 13.7 North Anna 13.7 James A. FitzPatrick 12.9 Indian Point 2 12.6 Pilgrim Nuclear 9.9 Calvert Cliffs 9.5 Indian Point 3 9.0 R.E. Ginna/Ontario Sta. 13 8.2 Surry 5.1 Davis Besse 4.5 Clinton Power Station 3.6 Perry 3.5 *Profitability is defined as the net pre-tax Limerick 1.9 Dresden 1.8 earnings of the individual facilities, Peach Bottom 1.7 calculated as the sum of energy sales, Donald C. Cook 1.4 capacity market revenue, and policy support Susquehanna 1.3 (subsidies if applicable) minus the cost of Braidwood Generating 0.8 generation. Salem 0.4 LaSalle County 0.3 St. Lucie 0.1 Beaver Valley –0.1 Palo Verde –0.5 Hope Creek –0.5 Grand Gulf –1.2 Alvin W. Vogtle –1.4 South Texas Project –2.6 ELECTRIC POWER MARKETS McGuire –3.0 Oconee –3.7 Northwest Quad Cities –3.7 Traditional markets, Diablo Canyon Southwest typically with –4.1 vertically integrated Palisades –4.1 Southeast Comanche Peak –4.5 utilities Browns Ferry –4.6 California (CAISO) Turkey Point –4.9 Point Beach –5.2 MISO Joseph M. Farley –6.0 SPP Markets that foster Edwin I. Hatch –6.4 Texas (ERCOT) competition for Waterford 3 –6.4 power generation Catawba –6.4 New England (ISO-NE) Oyster Creek –6.5 New York (NYISO) Three Mile Island –7.1 Byron Generating Station –8.0 PJM Sequoyah –8.1 Watts Bar Nuclear –8.3 Callaway –8.4 River Bend –8.7 Brunswick –9.1 V.C. Summer –9.8 Cooper Nuclear Station –9.8 Fermi –10.2 Duane Arnold Energy Ctr. –11.1 Arkansas Nuclear One –12.8 Columbia Generating –13.6 Shearon Harris Nuclear –15.8 Wolf Creek –17.6 H.B. Robinson –21.6 Prairie Island –26.8 Monticello –29.4 Estimated net profit* per MWh generated over Revised (8/15/2017): Corrects market data using input from EPA, EIA-860, 2017–2019 ($/MWh) 2015. Copyright: POWER magazine.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    1 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us