William Levis opines that the U.S. nuclear plants are at risk. In 2013, the U.S. had 104 operating nuclear plants. Since then, a dozen have closed or announced plans to shut down. These productive nuclear plants are not closing because they are too old or unsafe, but rather for economic reasons. If we do not act, and nuclear plants continue to close, the consequences will be significant for the economy, for customers, and for the environment. Fortunately, we in New Jersey have a chance to respond before it is too late for our nuclear fleet, which provides almost half of the state energy. Last month, Exelon, the largest nuclear plant operator, said it would close two Illinois plants by 2018, putting 1,500 people out of work. In New York, Entergy will retire its FitzPatrick nuclear plant next year, despite a $100 million state bailout offer the company called too little, too late. Here in New Jersey, Oyster Creek will close in 2019.
When it is gone, like the others, it most likely will be replaced with the least expensive option ... natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel. That, in turn, will leave the PSEG three Salem County plants as the source of nearly all of New Jersey carbon-free energy. These plants are not at immediate risk, but the national trend cannot be ignored. What is hurting nuclear plants? Primarily, natural gas. Since 2008, shale gas has flooded the market with new supplies, which have driven prices down. Those rock-bottom prices have deflated revenues for other generators, including nuclear plants. Second, rising regulatory costs. The U.S. nuclear power industry is one of its safest. Nevertheless, since Fukushima, nuclear plants have faced a series of expensive new mandates. They are returning in Japan. Finally, Well-intentioned policies with unintended consequences. In their zeal to cut carbon emissions, policymakers have heavily subsidized renewables, such as solar and wind, but at the expense of other energy sources.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
