Latest revision as of 20:17, 18 January 2022

Text

RIC 2021, Introductory Remarks on Economics of the Operating Nuclear Fleet
	ML21194A241
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	03/11/2021
From:	Crozat M; Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	; Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
	Betancourt L
References
	Download: ML21194A241 (14)
	v • d • e

Economics of the Operating Nuclear Fleet Matt Crozat Senior Director, Strategy and Policy Development March 11, 2021

Highest capacity factor ever achieved in 2019 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

Last 6 years 93.4% in 2019 50%

92.3% in 2018 40% 92.2% in 2017 92.1% in 2016 30%

92.2% in 2015 20% 91.7% in 2014 10%

0%

NEIs capacity factor calculation (93.4%) accurately accounts for Three Mile Island I and Pilgrim generation in 2019. U.S.

Energy Information Administration reports 93.5% as nuclear energys capacity factor.

2019 total generating costs decreased nearly $2.50/MWh 2019 costs compared to 2018:

Capital Fuel 5.71

Total generating costs decreased by 6.15

$2.49/MWh (7.6% reduction)

Total

Operations costs decreased by Generating $1.57/MWh (7.8% reduction)

Cost:

30.41

Capital costs decreased by

$0.61/MWh (9.6% reduction)

Fuel costs decreased by Operations 18.55 $0.32/MWh (4.9% reduction)

Total generating costs decreased nearly 32%

since 2012 50 45 40 Total Generating Costs ($/MWh) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

Premature Closures and Announced Shutdowns KEY Premature Closures Announced Shutdowns

State Policies Preserving Nuclear Plants KEY Plants Saved by State Action

Regional Electricity Markets

Nuclear Reactors Map Two-thirds of reactors in some form of market KEY Nuclear Reactor Locations ISO New England NYISO PJM MISO Southwest Power Pool ERCOT California ISO

Electricity Market Design Questions Energy Market

Which power plants should be used to meet demand?

How much should they be paid for their electricity?

Capacity Market

Which plants should be kept in service in case we need them?

How much should they be paid to stay in service?

Answer: Use the less expensive ones most often.

Declining Wholesale Electricity Prices

Nuclear Plants Preserved via State Action Summer Initially Electricity CO2 Emissions Avoided Generated Plant / Site State Capacity Announced (billion kWh in (Million metric tons per (MWe) Closure Year in 2019) 2019)

Beaver Valley 1 & 2 Pennsylvania 1,808 2021 15.5 9.9 Clinton Illinois 1,065 2017 8.4 8.4 Davis-Besse Ohio 894 2020 7.8 5.0 Fitzpatrick New York 848 2017 7.4 3.5 Ginna New York 582 2017 5.0 2.4 Hope Creek & Salem 1 & 2 New Jersey 3,500 ~2020-2021 26.6 17.0 Millstone 2 & 3 Connecticut 2,073 ~2020 16.7 7.6 Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 New York 1,917 2017-2018 15.8 7.5 Perry Ohio 1,240 2020 9.2 5.9 Quad Cities 1 & 2 Illinois 1,819 2018 15.5 9.9 TOTAL 15,746 127.9 76.9 Source: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the U.S.

State Clean Energy Policies

Utility carbon emission projections based on pledges AEP 1,000 Ameren Dominion DTE Energy 900 Duke Energy FirstEnergy Green Mountain Power 800 NRG PG&E CO2 Emissions (million metric tons)

Pinnacle West 700 PNM Resources PSEG Southern California Edison 600 Southern Company TVA Vistra Energy Xcel Energy 500 AES Alliant Avangrid 400 Avista CenterPoint Energy CMS Energy 300 ConEd Entergy Evergy 200 Idaho Power Madison Gas & Electric National Grid 100 NextEra Energy NiSource OG&E Energy Platte River Power Authority

- Portland General Electric PPL Puget Sound Energy Sempra Energy WEC Energy

Key Takeaways U.S. nuclear fleet operating at high level and reducing costs Depressed market revenues challenging the continuing operation of many plants Policies to value carbon-free generation can change prospects for nuclear plants

ML21194A241: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 20:17, 18 January 2022

Text

Navigation menu

ML21194A241: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 20:17, 18 January 2022

Text

Navigation menu

Search