Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

A long slow recovery of the economy with job growth tentatively scheduled on the back end has caused our government to spend nearly a trillion dollars on “stimulus.”   Job creation is supposed to be at the heart of this spending and the results are mixed at best.

As much as 50 billion dollars in federal loan guarantees were almost  included in the stimulus package this Spring which could have allowed for the construction of 7 to 10 new nuclear power plants all in different states across the country.   Unfortunately, the loan guarantee amount was reduced by Rep. Waxman (Dem, CA) at the last minute to 18 billion dollars, which would allow the construction of only 3 new plants.

A quick refresher of what a loan guarantee is: essentially, the government co-signs on a construction loan but pays no cash in the process. The reason this is done is to lower the risk of the loan, which lowers the interest rate.   The lowering of the interest rate makes the large investment more manageable for the utility and incentivizes them to start construction sooner.   In this instance it would be economic stimulus without spending. This cash free type of stimulus is a beautiful thing in this poor economy.

So, if EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and others say we need more nuclear plants to meet the nation’s energy needs and maintain clean air standards, and the economy is desperate for job creation, then loan guarantees are a no brainer.   The current three loan guarantees are not enough and we need more to add job creation into this economic recovery. Our congress needs a sense of urgency in the right direction on this issue, and currently the urgency is all going to other issues besides job creation.

[Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

Two recent press releases from Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Confederation of British Industry (CBI) have recommended a diverse mix of energy sources. However, both reports have delineated the prominence of Nuclear.

Here are both stories from World Nuclear News:

CBI: Nuclear should lead the mix

EPRI: All technologies vital for optimum electricity future

Since Jonny already reported on the EPRI report on Wednesday, here’s a short blurb from the CBI’s report:

The CBI showed cost figures based on the best features of a typical nuclear reactor: being able to generate 8.6 billion kWh of low-carbon electricity per year and provide 1000 MWe to the grid at peak.

A nuclear power plant with this capability would cost £2.5 billion, plus £500 million for eventual decommissioning ($4 billion plus $800 million), whereas a series of wind generators with the same attributes would cost £6.5 billion ($10.4 billion).

Apart from costing over twice the amount to build, due mainly to the need for 70% redundancy to make up for low capacity factors, the difference in figures is down to £1.3 billion ($2.0 billion) in transmission lines as well as £256 million ($413 million) in back-up gas-fired generation for days when it is not windy.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

In an article released today by Reuters, some light was shed on a study done by EPRI which calls for 45 more Nuclear reactors in the United States by 2030. The study takes into consideration many different scenarios such as climate legislation, increase in cost of electricity, price to construct nuclear plants, increase in number of electric plug in cars and trucks, etc.

You might think 45 is a lot of new plants to build, but if you take into consideration that this is over 21 years away and the status of the licensing of existing plants, this is very feasible. Many plants will be at the end of their 20 year license extension around year 2030 and will have to be shut down and decommissioned. Therefore, we have to look at the affect that decommissioning plants will have to the overall nuclear power produced along with the CO2 prevented from nuclear power production.

Currently, Nuclear power makes up about 20% of the energy produced in the US today. It also accounts for almost 700 million metric tons of CO2 avoided in the US. Compare this to 200 million metric tons of CO2 avoided by hydro power, 27 million by wind power, and 0.5 million by solar power. If we want to keep that 20% of power produced and the avoidance of 700 million metric tons, these new 45 plant reactors will be crucial. Taking the decommissioning plants into consideration, the new 45 plants will help in replacing the loss of existing plants, along with adding more energy production and CO2 avoidance.

This EPRI report also indicates something very important that most people forget to see, EPRI states that in order to reduce CO2 emissions and keep costs from getting out of control, we need a MIX of all forms of energy not just one or two. The truth is the right mix is one that includes a large portion of nuclear with an increase use of solar, wind and other renewable technologies.