The nuclear industry’s Earth Week assault on renewables, electricity markets

The Clinton nuclear reactor nearly bankrupted the small utility and rural co-ops that originally built it. Despite being bought for a few cents on the dollar by Exelon, it still isn't economic and may face shutdown. Photo by cryptome.org.

The Clinton nuclear reactor nearly bankrupted the small utility and rural co-ops that originally built it. Despite being bought for a few cents on the dollar by Exelon, it still isn’t economic and may face shutdown. Photo by cryptome.org.

As we’ve warned several times over the past few weeks, the nuclear industry is not taking the threat of more reactor shutdowns lying down–not simply because many of their reactors can’t compete against renewables and gas anymore. With the recent formation of the front group Nuclear Matters, which exists only to defend operating reactors and appears to be funded solely by Exelon; in numerous and clearly coordinated op-eds placed in key media outlets in Exelon and Entergy’s service areas; in an increasing number of public appearances by top executives from nuclear and fossil fuel-dominated utilities; and in an unknown number of backroom lobbying visits, the nuclear industry is waging a full-press campaign to hang on to its aging dinosaurs as long as possible.

That campaign intensified this week, beginning on Earth Day, with a new and more explicit assault on renewables, some revised framing of their arguments, and at least some new details on the kind of bailouts and market-rigging the industry wants to support existing nuclear reactors at ratepayer expense.

Fortunately, the wind power industry, at least, has begun to fight back. Anti-nuclear activists need to do the same.

And, while probably not directly related, some big energy users like Google, the rooftop solar power industry, and the New York state government, all took major steps this week that undercut the nuclear industry’s arguments.

Carol Browner. Photo from wikimedia commons.

Carol Browner. Photo from wikimedia commons.

The industry’s amplified campaign began, ironically enough (not that the industry actually appreciates the irony) on Earth Day with the announcement that former EPA Administrator and Obama Administration climate “czar” Carol Browner is the latest big name to sign on with Exelon’s Nuclear Matters front group.

The industry used the occasion to stress, in speeches and op-eds, the false argument that shutting down a third of the nation’s reactors (yes, that’s how many the industry itself says are now in jeopardy) would make achieving U.S. climate goals impossible.

Here’s Browner on Earth Day: “Preserving our existing nuclear plants will be a key part of our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and build a cleaner-energy future and safer environment for our children.”

Here’s former EPA assistant administrator J. Winston Porter in an Earth Day op-ed in the Albany Times Union: “Recently, [DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy] Lyons warned that if nearly a third of the nation’s nuclear plants are forced to close, there would be no way to meet the Obama administration’s goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.”

Here’s William A. Von Hoene, Jr., Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer for Exelon, in a speech in Washington the next day: “Beyond its economic benefits, the U.S. nuclear fleet is key to advancing toward a clean energy future. We simply cannot achieve our climate change goals without them.”

Coordinated talking points anyone?

“Reliability” (and that polar vortex…) remains a top talking point as well.

Here’s Porter: “Yet the electricity market has no mechanism for recognizing the value of nuclear power as a reliable source of emission-free base-load electricity, delivered as needed.”

And here’s Von Hoene: “Removing a significant amount of baseload nuclear from the supply stack would seriously threaten reliability. That risk was highlighted by the severe and persistent cold this winter.”

And then they go into the “problem”: the system is stacked against the poor nuclear utilities.

Von Hoene: But the unfortunate reality for nuclear right now is that despite being the largest, most reliable and lowest-emitting power plants–and among the lowest cost–they are not getting recognized or compensated for those attributes. Major shifts in how we produce and consume energy are putting economic stress on nuclear facilities.”

Porter: “Yet the electricity market has no mechanism for recognizing the value of nuclear power as a reliable source of emission-free base-load electricity, delivered as needed.”

Nuclear Matters, in a statement announcing Brower’s joining them: “For a number of reasons, some of the nation’s existing nuclear energy plants face threats to their continued operation.”

As for solutions, as we’ve written about in these pages (here for example), the basic issue is this: for those utilities operating in deregulated electricity markets, which is about 2/3 of the country, nuclear reactors are increasingly uncompetitive with renewables and natural gas. Moreover, because reactors cannot ramp their power output up and down quickly, they cannot take advantage of fluctuations in the electricity market (for example, increased demand on a very hot or cold day) as can renewables and gas, which are much more flexible electricity providers.

As the entire electric grid moves further toward renewables, and especially rooftop solar (where people are not relying on the grid at all or only in times of extreme need), flexibility will become even more important and the kind of 20th century baseload power that nuclear and coal plants represent will become even more obsolete.

For Nuclear Matters and the industry generally, that “baseload” power–the ability of a power plant to provide power 24/7 just about all the time–is, or at least should be, a selling point and is what the industry basically means when it stresses “reliability.” After all, it was a strong selling point in the 1970s and 1980s….

But the era of baseload power, and huge power plants of all kinds that require equally huge amounts of backup power when they aren’t operating, is ending. It’s not over yet, but it’s getting there faster than most believed possible just a few years ago, and certainly much faster than planned for by utilities still trapped by their 20th century business model.

The backup power issue needed for large power plants is growing more troubling. When a large reactor shuts down unexpectedly, it puts a major stress on the grid to make up that power, something that has to happen immediately. Indeed, in the past, providers of other power sources reserved some of the electricity they could have been selling just to be able to compensate for reactors unexpectedly shutting down. But in a competitive marketplace, where every kilowatt sold makes a difference to the bottom line, many providers are no longer doing that. To make matters worse, as reported today by Union of Concerned Scientists, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports that utilities are having a harder time recovering from reactor scrams than they were twenty years ago, making the overall grid more fragile.

More threatening than the backup power issue to the nuclear utilities is that the baseload power model doesn’t work at all in a grid dominated by renewables. In that system, which is developing quickly, the grid has to be much more nimble in its ability to obtain and dispatch power than the 20th century grid. Indeed, the presence of large baseload power plants actually prevents a renewables-dominated grid. Up to 30% renewables or so, the grid can handle both types of power relatively easily. But to bring renewables up beyond that point the large baseload plants become an interference–and increasingly a very expensive interference since they’re providing power at a higher cost. To take full advantage of lower-cost renewables will require a restructuring of the grid and an end to large baseload plants. The inevitable alternative if that isn’t done will be, within the next decade or so but already beginning, a growing percentage of “grid defectors”–people and businesses installing rooftop solar, soon with battery backup to operate 24/7, or at least close enough for most people, and choosing to disconnect from the larger grid. In that alternative, the utilities ultimately not only lose the grid battle, they lose their customers permanently. But if high-cost nuclear and coal plants are not retired in time, that process will only accelerate. When going off-grid becomes cheaper than staying on and just as reliable, why not?

As for reliability of renewables, which nuclear advocates have long attacked, the proof is in the pudding as they say. Consider this very different Earth Day announcement: Google said it reached an agreement with Warren Buffett’s Mid-American Energy to buy, for itself, more than 400 Megawatts of wind for Google’s data center in Iowa. There is no business on Earth more dependent on reliability of electricity than a data center–without electricity they don’t operate and neither does Google. This week Google also put up $100 million in a deal with SunPower to expand that company’s ability to provide leases for rooftop solar installations–that’s on top of $350 million in similar deals Google has made with SolarCity and Clean Power Finance.

When the companies that require reliability the most opt for renewables, the nuclear industry’s claim about its own reliability begins to sound a little pathetic.

What Nuclear Matters wants–and that means really, what Exelon and Entergy–which own many of the aging reactors most threatened by competition, want, has been pretty obscure so far beyond a desire to either rig or re-regulate the marketplace so that people will be forced to pay more for nuclear powered-electricity than alternatives simply because of nuclear power’s alleged virtues. Not a very compelling argument.

But as their campaign intensifies (some might say as their desperation intensifies), we’re beginning to see a few specifics.

In his piece, Porter argues for including nuclear power in New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires that the state receive at least 30% of its power from renewables by 2030. Of course, putting existing reactors in that standard would completely undermine the entire intent of the law, which is to encourage development of clean new energy sources in the state. Nor is nuclear power in any way “renewable.” That concept has been tried before, in many states, and almost universally has failed.

And, though it is surely coincidence, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo this week didn’t sound like a guy who plans to try to claim the Indian Point reactors he wants closed should be considered “renewable” energy. Instead, Cuomo unveiled a new $1 Billion plan to accelerate solar power development in New York. He separately announced a new plan to create a 21st century grid in New York; as part of that, the New York Public Service Commission “…will also examine how the State’s regulatory practices could be modified to incentive utility practices that best promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, least cost energy supply, fuel diversity, system adequacy and reliability, demand elasticity, and customer empowerment.”

Hmm, we don’t see any mention of nuclear power in there….

Ok, so nuclear power as a renewable energy source isn’t going to happen, especially in New York. But this lengthy article looks at some of the things Exelon does want to happen, especially at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). It’s rather wonky, but worth understanding. In essence, Exelon wants to inhibit the ability especially of wind power–its biggest problem–but also natural gas, to be able to provide electricity more cheaply than nuclear power. For example, one of its proposals is that FERC should require that a certain amount of capacity has to have its fuel onsite–which nuclear and coal plants do, of course. Natural gas doesn’t; it’s typically piped or trucked in. And wind requires no fuel at all; neither does solar.

Still, even taken together, the proposals Exelon makes in this article don’t appear sufficient to overcome nuclear’s economic disadvantages.

Exelon’s Van Hoene offered a few, but only a few, more ideas in his speech. One eye-popping statement he made: “But we as an industry can’t continue to deny that subsidies for generation distort energy prices and threaten the continued investment in non-subsidized supply, including nuclear.”

What he means is that Exelon wants to see the Production Tax Credit for wind power ended (right now Exelon is most focused on wind because of the rapid growth of wind in the Midwest, but count on it, as solar grows Exelon will go after it well). The claim that nuclear power is “non-subsidized” flies hard into the face of reality. Depending on how you count, nuclear is either the most or second-most (behind fossil fuels as a group) subsidized energy source in the U.S. and historically has been since the day the government first began to support development of nuclear power.

Subsidies for oil, gas and nuclear have dwarfed those for renewables over the years. Graph reposted from Utility Dive.

Subsidies for oil, gas and nuclear have dwarfed those for renewables over the years. Graph reposted from Utility Dive.

The graph to the right, reprinted from this article in Utility Dive, shows just how far off-base Exelon is in arguing that nuclear is a “non-subsidized” energy source.

So, in a nutshell, to deconstruct Exelon’s arguments, what it wants is all government support for renewables to end but for subsidies for nuclear power to continue and even expand. That is the gist of Exelon’s message to policymakers.

The American Wind Energy Association has issued a lengthy and compelling rebuttal to all of Exelon’s claims about not only the wind Production Tax Credit, but that somehow wind power is competing unfairly with Exelon’s reactors. You can (and should) read it here. And the Utility Dive article cited above notes that “Executives of both NextEra and Xcel, both of which have generation portfolios broadly comparable to Exelon, told this reporter that low natural gas prices play a much bigger role than the PTC in negative pricing and current nuclear plant economics.”

In other words, Exelon’s claims are self-serving nonsense. The same holds true for Entergy and Nuclear Matters. The nuclear utilities operating in competitive marketplaces can’t keep up with the competition and are falling farther and farther behind. Rather than adjust to the changing arena and retire its reactors quietly, these entities want someone, anyone, to bail them out and make ratepayers suffer higher rates until these aging behemoths fall on their own.

But meanwhile, Nuclear Matters and the industry generally, are stepping up their efforts. Next up is a major event Monday in Washington, where a nuclear-funded phony “environmental” group, The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, is holding a half-day conference at the National Press Club titled, CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR POWER.

The speaker’s list is a nuclear industry dream team, including DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Pete Lyons; the industry’s freshest face, Carol Browner; and representatives from Areva, Exelon and Entergy, all on one stage. Not too difficult to guess how this group is going to come down on the issue, despite the years of research and study after study after study showing conclusively that not only is nuclear not needed to address climate change (and thus there is no reason to suffer its safety issues, radioactive waste problems, devastation caused by uranium mining and processing, proliferation, and on and on), but that it is actually counterproductive because it is so expensive, thus getting in the way of cheaper and cleaner sources, and it prevents full development of the 21st century grid that is a prerequisite to a clean energy system.

Just last month, by the way, Browner was named chair of the board of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the nation’s leading environmental political action committee, dedicated to the election of pro-environment candidates. At least, LCV was that. At this point, to our sorrow and dismay, NIRS can no longer support LCV or its work. Not until its board chair is no longer funded and supported by the nuclear power industry. If you feel the same way, you might want to let them know. We did.

Michael Mariotte

April 25, 2014

Permalink: http://safeenergy.org/2014/04/25/the-nuclear-industrys-earth-week-assault/

You can now support GreenWorld with your tax-deductible contribution on our new donation page here. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size–your support is what makes our work possible.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

Note: If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail daily, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “The nuclear industry’s Earth Week assault on renewables, electricity markets

  1. Nondi Ploom

    Some people will testify to absolutely anything if given enough money:
    ‘”. . . a cleaner-energy future and safer environment for our children.’ Uranium mining and spent nuclear fuel are cleaner than wind and solar? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukusihima are more safe than wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal?

    BTW Carol, ‘cleaner’ and ‘safer’ are at best, awkward. Next time try ‘more safe and clean’. Put that B.A. in English to work for a change.

    Reply
  2. id8

    I am utterly baffled by modern environmentalist’s fondness for nukes.
    A new term is needed for those folks, environmentalist to me refers both to a historical era, 70′s era roots, and a set of values, views. Environmentalists agreed on one thing, nukes are stupid. Tens of thousands of years of radioactivity to fire up bad popcorn in the microwave?
    This was deeply related to a revulsion for the cold war nonsense.
    To have this nuke push coming from what is called the “left” is just dismal. Where will the push-back come from?
    For now, a name is needed. A label, one that is not nice. Greens is not correct. Perhaps Browns. Brown shirted greens. A take on “deniers”, I suppose.
    What to call them? Shortsighted.
    Another irritation? Trotting out fossil fuel industry influence, going back to the mythical 100 MPG carburetor is standard, almost meaningless boilerplate now as it is so ubiquitous. “They” don’t let this or that happen. But only deafening silence arsurrounds the trillion dollar nuke industry’s influence, and the historically incestuous ties to the Pentagon, US military, all of that.
    This from the administration, down to the roots.
    These folks had no limit to the amount of money available, which nobody either bothered counting, or it remains a big secret. We don’t need to know that, they say. This theme repeated around things Nuclear, from day one. The result is an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined, polluted by the waste. 72 years since Fermi’s magic trick, still no place to put the commercial stuff. A legacy of radioactive waste that will need to be managed for time measured in millenniums.
    On top of this now old story? More deafening silence about Fukushima. Another area the size of Rhode Island abandoned. This is an acceptable risk?
    I will continue to be utterly baffled by the current casual acceptance of it. I havre chosen to believe folks just have not really thought about it, are perhaps overwhelmed, feel powerless,
    and that they are simply not aware. So what you are doing is important.
    Thanks for fighting the good fight
    /Rant

    Reply
    1. Peter Sipp

      Howdy id8,
      Some labels have come to me. Would “green slime”, “green skum”, be close?
      We can defeat the kock bros etal by rising up in our own states. Mr Mariotte said yesterday ” that the approach “they” will use is when state implementation plans for The Clean Air Act will be filed by states with the EPA over the next 5 years as a leverage point to rig the scales in favor of n. power.” I think this is the gist of it. The writing was in a recent issue of Green World.
      I see myself becoming active with my state’s Sierra Club on this. I wrote Senator Burr (R N.C.) and told him Not to vote for any more $ to the n.industry. That I and the other state members of the Sierra Club would be watching how he votes on this. Not too much later, one of his staffers called me and said Senator Burr won’t be voting for any more $ for n.power!!!
      How ’bout that !!!
      Our chances have gotten MUCH better lately. I mean to end n. power here in the U.S. The cheerleaders are getting desperate. Here recently, I have begun to bring out a fact that the cheerleaders CANNOT BS their way out of: N WASTE has the inherent ability to destroy any container. The containers have a “lifetime” of 100 years. This means that for the next 100,000 + years the containers will have to be replaced every 100 years!!! So, there will be more containers at the end than the beginning. The MIDAS TOUCH in REVERSE!!! I hope to hear from you Cheers, Pete Sipp

      Reply
      1. Michael Mariotte Post author

        Just one quick point: while the State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act clearly are going to be one target for the nuclear industry, they also are lobbying at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state public utility commissions, etc. in search of other ways to get rates raised or other favorable treatment for nuclear power at the expense of renewables. They are not limiting themselves to one venue, and we can’t either…..

      2. id8

        Hi Pete
        Creative naming, but I think it would be best to retain a positive vibe around Green?
        Plus there is a core of folks who associate slime with Everything green, scream about subsidies, drill baby drill. So the specific “Pro Nuke” meaning is lost. Pro-Nuke Green.
        I think it is important that it does not get sold out. Green is being sold out to the CO2 problem.
        Folks should laugh at the nuke industry for this effort. So, a funny term, somehow, to relate that?This also has to go along with an attitude that pro nuke is not green. This jibes with the German roots. Waste deadly to all life forms? Definitively Not Green. Radioactive Water is Not Green. Radioactive Tomatoes are Not Organic. Radioactive Greens.
        But if many who think of themselves as green, promote green etc. end up being pro nuke it would define itself. Using green and nuke in the same sentence feels Orwellian to me. Obscene. It also says to folks who are otherwise unmoved by it all that the greens are, well, none too bright, and probably hypocrites.

        Promoting the fact that the Nuke industry is going after renewables is needed.

        Did not know that about the containers. They become waste, then? The fact that they don’t automatically, routinely use them, to clear out the fuel pools? NRC saying that will be fine, post Fukushima, while not even quietly getting it done? Turtles all the way down. Now the Green leaning folks lean nuclear. Everything around this is mind numbing.

        Entergy’s Yankee is right over there. So I am front row center to the coming wave of de-coms. Folks here are more relaxed now, thinking It is done. Many think it is already shut down. That the risk is gone. It seems to me it is increased? Folks have had 40 years experience running these gadgets, they know that job. Zero days taking them apart.

        I am tempted by an idea of converting the SFP into a long term storage. I imagine folks picture a green field there, but might it be better to just leave it alone? Secure it up, put a lid on it. Every time something is moved, risks increase. Is there any thought on doing this sort of thing?

        What is to stop them from just folding the company here once they stop making power? They are individual LLCs, I believe? Is the only thing preventing that the potential backlash?

        I have wandered all about here. Thanks for your time, and input.
        And thanks you, Mr. Michael Mariotte for all your hard work and this great site.
        It is now a regular stop for me.
        Later.

We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s