Those worthless egg sucking economic dog nuclear plants...
Energy Wire: Why are certain nuclear plants having trouble competing right now?
Rowe: And in a world that's driven by unfriendly market prices and unfriendly public policy, you shut them down.
Rowe: If I were there, I think I'd have shut the New Jersey plant [Oyster Creek] down first
The six plants facing the preverbal electric chair...
Clinton one plantI think there will be an intensification of lower energy prices here is the USA...Iran jump starting their petroleum industry (good) and issues with growth in china and their stock market problems.
Quad Cities two plants
Byron two Plants
Oyster Creek one plant
We are getting ready to lose Texas.
What the hell going to go on when American fracting comes to the Iranian oil fields.
EnergyWire: Monday, July 27, 2015
Energywire: So, what's the right policy solution to keep existing nuclear viable, such as the three Exelon plants in Illinois that are said to be losing money?
EnergyWire: Why are certain nuclear plants having trouble competing right now? Is it just natural gas and wind?
Rowe: Yeah, wind and gas and energy efficiency. The combination of the recession and energy efficiency -- and no one knows the percentages -- has caused demand for electricity to stay below '07 levels through today and probably for another seven or eight years in the Northeast. In a supply-and-demand market, reduced demand hurts. That's the first factor. The second factor is much of the time a nuclear plant is competing against natural gas in the market, so cheap gas really hurts. The third factor is the subsidized wind -- which you really pay for, and it runs whether it's economic or not -- that hurts. The wind really annoys utility people because it runs at night. At night, you have more than enough electricity, and wind just ruins the price.
EW: It has been said that preserving existing nuclear plants is key to helping the U.S. achieve climate goals. So, what's the right policy solution to keep existing nuclear viable, such as the three Exelon plants in Illinois that are said to be losing money?
Rowe: I'm living in a fairy world because I don't have the numbers and I'm not responsible for them anymore. But in my opinion, you shut those three plants down. You say they have become uneconomic just like some old coal plants are uneconomic. And in a world that's driven by unfriendly market prices and unfriendly public policy, you shut them down. That's what I think the answer is, which is a setback for our low-carbon goals and a setback for the high-paying industrial jobs that people want to keep. But it is the proper market-driven answer.
EW: That would be unpopular with your former colleagues.
Rowe: I don't know. I can ask, but I don't want to ask. They have to figure this out for themselves. I love nuclear power plants. For [current Exelon CEO] Chris Crane, it's his life. He would probably go further to keep a plant running than I would go. I don't believe there's anything divine about markets, but I believe they're pretty important. Chris has only seen the sour side of the markets. I don't believe you can run a good utility letting public policy push you toward something but not pay you for it.
In some ways, I believe the only way a utility has credibility in saying that something isn't making any money is if it's actually willing to shut it down. If I were there, I think I'd have shut the New Jersey plant [Oyster Creek] down first. It's the oldest, it's the smallest, and it would have given credibility to what Exelon is saying about the other four. Nuclear power plants have been shut down before around the country. Am I saying that's the desirable answer? No, I'm not. What I'm saying is if the real reason to keep them running is a public policy reason, then the public has to help bear the cost of doing that…
No comments:
Post a Comment