U.S. expects about 10 pct of nuclear capacity to shut by 2020

[bananas]

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/utilities-nuclear-eia-idINL2N0NK23D20140428

U.S. expects about 10 pct of nuclear capacity to shut by 2020

HOUSTON, April 28 Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:23am IST

(Reuters) - Lower natural gas prices and stagnant growth in electric demand will lead to the loss of 10,800 megawatts of U.S. nuclear generation, or around 10 percent of total capacity, by the end of the decade, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a report issued on Monday.

About 6,000 MW of nuclear capacity will shut by 2020 in addition to six reactors totaling 4,800 MW that have already shut or plan to shut in that time period, the EIA said in its 2014 annual electric output study.

<snip>

Rising natural gas prices after 2020 may support continued operation of U.S. nuclear plants for several years, but many reactors will reach the end of their 60-year operating license beginning in 2029 and shut permanently.

<snip>

In its 2013 report, the EIA projected only 7,700 MW, or about 7 percent, of nuclear capacity would retire by 2040. The report did not mention the number of units that are likely shut after operating for 60 years after 2029.

<snip>

[bananas]

1. Nuclear boosters scramble to protect industry as EIA predicts reactor shutdowns

http://safeenergy.org/2014/04/29/nuclear-boosters-scramble/

Nuclear boosters scramble to protect industry as EIA predicts reactor shutdowns

Yesterday was a telling day to contemplate the future of nuclear power, renewables, and the future of energy generally, as I did while moderating an excellent webinar on nuclear power and climate change for some key NIRS supporters, featuring Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment, and Tim Judson, Acting Executive Director of NIRS. An edited, digestible version of the two-hour event will be available on NIRS website as soon as we can do the editing…

The webinar offered convincing and well-documented assertions that a) nuclear power cannot possibly be a useful means of addressing climate change; indeed, it only makes the problem worse; b) in fact, the entire antiquated concept of “baseload” power makes the problem still worse by preventing the full implementation of 21st century energy technologies; c) even if nuclear power–including existing reactors–were able to address climate, it would be too expensive to do so and that expense crowds out better alternatives; and d) the nuclear industry’s efforts to save its existing reactors (forget about building new ones) is beginning to look like an all-out war on renewables and ratepayers alike.

But the webinar isn’t really the point of this piece, it’s that yesterday provided a tell-tale snapshot of where the nuclear industry is, where it’s headed, and what obstacles are likely to be thrown in front of the path to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future.

In the morning, the nuclear and fossil-fuel funded Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (known in Washington as C2ES) held a seminar at the National Press Club featuring Nuclear Matters’ latest spokesperson Carol Browner; representatives from Areva, Exelon and Entergy; DOE’s Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Pete Lyons; Sue Tierney who headed President Obama’s Energy Department transition team and is now at The Analysis Group; and C2ES President Eileen Claussen, a long-time advocate of using nuclear power as a climate change strategy. The purpose of the event was release of a new paper from C2ES, which is almost remarkable in its agreement with the arguments being touted by Nuclear Matters. Those arguments boil down to: nuclear reactors are in trouble economically, let’s do whatever we can and make any silly case we can to keep them running no matter how much it increases ratepayers’ bills. Oh, and baseload power. Did we mention baseload power? Don’t forget baseload power.

<snip>

Still, one useful bit of information emerged from the seminar. Both Claussen and Tierney pointed to State Implementation Plans for the Clean Air Act that will be filed by states with the EPA over the next five years as a leverage point to rig the scales in favor of nuclear power. This will be an arena clean energy activists will have to focus on and participate in.

<snip>

[kristopher]

2. "The industry acts as if the American public existed to serve the grid..."

NRG CEO Crane, new energy guy in town, takes a shot at incumbent Exelon

NRG Energy Inc. CEO David Crane, in town for a lunchtime address at a high-profile clean energy event and on the heels of an acquisition that makes his Princeton, N.J.-based company a major player in Chicago, criticized Exelon Corp. for its recent calls for help for its financially ailing Illinois nuclear plants.

Mr. Crane chided Chicago-based Exelon, by far Illinois' largest power generator and owner of Commonwealth Edison Co., for publicly advocating for the elimination of subsidies for wind and solar power and at the same time asking for public help to bolster the finances at several of its nukes in Illinois.

...

The industry, he said, “acts as if the American public existed to serve the grid rather than the grid existing to serve the American public.”

“The power industry in its DNA is maybe the least innovative industry in the U.S.,” he said, and elicited some laughs with a slightly hyperbolic addition, “and maybe in the history of mankind.”

NRG recently...

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140403/NEWS11/140409889/nrg-ceo-crane-new-energy-guy-in-town-takes-a-shot-at-incumbent-exelon