Analysis: More than Half of U.S. Nuclear Plants Lose Money

[thackney]

Analysis: More than Half of U.S. Nuclear Plants Lose Money
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/06/analysis-more-than-half-of-u-s-nuclear-plants-lose-money.html
Jun 19, 2017

A study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance indicates 34 of the 61 nuclear plants operating in the United States are losing money.

Though nuclear plants receive between $20 and $30 per MW/h of electricity, it costs them an average of $35 per MW/h to run. The report noted nearly all the reactors owned by Exelon, Entergy and FirstEnergy are operating at losses.

In an emailed statement, Entergy indicated nuclear generators are facing financial challenges due to sustained wholesale power price declines and other unfavorable market conditions. Entergy, Exelo and FirstEnergy declined to provide specific financial information for its nuclear plants.

However, shuttering all unprofitable nuclear plants would “easily vanquish” all emissions reductions made by the sector since 2012.

“It’s a real threat to carbon-emission reductions,” said Nicholas Steckler, an author on the report. “How regulators confront this widespread challenge has massive implications.”

[Sanguine]

So, what do you think, @thackney? 

[thackney]

Some background data for the topic.

The weighted average price of wholesale electricity is as follows:

2014 = 52.32 $/MWh
2015 = 35.07 $/MWh
2016 = 30.31 $/MWh

And so far this year: 2017 = 29.32 $/MWh

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/#history

[thackney]

So, what do you think, @thackney?

I think the numbers in the article are real. 

I don't think private business will long survive losing money.

Subsidies have already started in a few locations.

[Joe Wooten]

I think the numbers in the article are real. 

I don't think private business will long survive losing money.

Subsidies have already started in a few locations.

They are real, but the real reason most of them are losing money is that the wind generators get a production subsidy and use part of it to pay folks to take their electricity in the early morning hours, still making money because of that subsidy,  causing the baseload nuke plants to both reduce load, AND pay others to take their electricity.

[thackney]

They are real, but the real reason most of them are losing money is that the wind generators get a production subsidy and use part of it to pay folks to take their electricity in the early morning hours, still making money because of that subsidy,  causing the baseload nuke plants to both reduce load, AND pay others to take their electricity.

Tough to compete against someone getting paid 180% the price of your same product, with less reliability.

(market price + subsidy)
https://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc

[Joe Wooten]

Tough to compete against someone getting paid 180% the price of your same product, with less reliability.

(market price + subsidy)
https://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc

Damn sure is. We can compete with the gas plants because nearly all of them are either peaking or load following units that only want to generate power when the spot price is high.

[thackney]

Damn sure is. We can compete with the gas plants because nearly all of them are either peaking or load following units that only want to generate power when the spot price is high.

I think, we will continue to see more Nat Gas Base Load due to high efficiencies rates of combined cycle combustion turbines combined with the abundance of "cheap" Nat Gas.

[Joe Wooten]

I think, we will continue to see more Nat Gas Base Load due to high efficiencies rates of combined cycle combustion turbines combined with the abundance of "cheap" Nat Gas.

The merchant operators will have to change their mindset first. They prefer to either run at low load or shut down during low demand times.

[Sanguine]

Tough to compete against someone getting paid 180% the price of your same product, with less reliability.

(market price + subsidy)
https://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc

That backs up what I thought.  Thanks,

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Won't be buying g any stock in Exelon, Entergy and FirstEnergy

[Fishrrman]

Nuclear power for electricity:
The god that failed.

Remember back in the fifties, when the promise of nuclear power generation was electricity that would be so cheap, you wouldn't even need a meter to measure it?

Prediction:
Aside from the very few nuke plants currently under construction, no more will be started in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

I'm wondering if those under construction will ever open, a la "Shoreham"?

American power generation's future is (for the short term) natural gas and coal.
For the long-term -- say, fifty to three hundred years' hence -- it's going to be coal.
There's more of that in the ground than we could dig out in four hundred years.

Natural gas isn't going to last that long.
Nor is any other liquid or gaseous source of btu's, unless they figure out how to get the methane out of the ocean.

Once the diesel engines become too expensive to run, we can always bring back the steamers!  ;)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

American power generation's future is (for the short term) natural gas and coal.
For the long-term -- say, fifty to three hundred years' hence -- it's going to be coal.
There's more of that in the ground than we could dig out in four hundred years.

Natural gas isn't going to last that long.
Nor is any other liquid or gaseous source of btu's, unless they figure out how to get the methane out of the ocean.

Quite impressive, such a glowing eulogy on the hydrocarbon industry.

After spending +40 years in the oil and gas industry across the world estimating reserves and working Exploration, Development and Unconventionals, I have been exposed to a lot of past and future potential in industry.

In my opinion, to date,we have seen prognostications of the end of industry just like you have made.  I myself was told when I graduated as a petroleum engineer that we would have no more oil left of this earth after 10 years.  Since that time, we not only have produced several times the amount of oil reserves existing at the time, but right now, have the highest amount of reserves ever, and producing at a much higher rate.

And gas?  It is absolutely staggering the amount of potential that exists, so much that I see no reason for this country to ever in many, many generations to worry about running out.

Yes we have lots of coal.  But we are just beginning to see the true extent of natural gas potential.  It will be here, provided by God and the ingenuity given us for so long, there is absolutely no need to worry.

[thackney]

Nuclear power for electricity:
The god that failed.

Remember back in the fifties, when the promise of nuclear power generation was electricity that would be so cheap, you wouldn't even need a meter to measure it?

Prediction:
Aside from the very few nuke plants currently under construction, no more will be started in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

I'm wondering if those under construction will ever open, a la "Shoreham"?

American power generation's future is (for the short term) natural gas and coal.
For the long-term -- say, fifty to three hundred years' hence -- it's going to be coal.
There's more of that in the ground than we could dig out in four hundred years.

Natural gas isn't going to last that long.
Nor is any other liquid or gaseous source of btu's, unless they figure out how to get the methane out of the ocean.

Once the diesel engines become too expensive to run, we can always bring back the steamers!  ;)

Got any source of information for your claims?

You greatly underestimate the amount of Natural Gas available in shale, IMO.

[Joe Wooten]

Nuclear power for electricity:
The god that failed.

Remember back in the fifties, when the promise of nuclear power generation was electricity that would be so cheap, you wouldn't even need a meter to measure it?

Prediction:
Aside from the very few nuke plants currently under construction, no more will be started in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.

I'm wondering if those under construction will ever open, a la "Shoreham"?

American power generation's future is (for the short term) natural gas and coal.
For the long-term -- say, fifty to three hundred years' hence -- it's going to be coal.
There's more of that in the ground than we could dig out in four hundred years.

Natural gas isn't going to last that long.
Nor is any other liquid or gaseous source of btu's, unless they figure out how to get the methane out of the ocean.

Once the diesel engines become too expensive to run, we can always bring back the steamers!  ;)

The "too cheap to meter" canard was what the government official moron thought was a good line to use for touting nuclear power expansion. He was immediately corrected by folks who knew better, but that line stuck, and the whole industry has been hoisted on that petard ever since. No one in the 60's who knew anything how the plants are built and operate ever used that line, just reporters and ignorant elected officials.