• 3 hours U.S. On Track To Unseat Saudi Arabia As No.2 Oil Producer In the World
  • 5 hours Senior Interior Dept. Official Says Florida Still On Trump’s Draft Drilling Plan
  • 7 hours Schlumberger Optimistic In 2018 For Oilfield Services Businesses
  • 9 hours Only 1/3 Of Oil Patch Jobs To Return To Canada After Downturn Ends
  • 12 hours Statoil, YPF Finalize Joint Vaca Muerta Development Deal
  • 14 hours TransCanada Boasts Long-Term Commitments For Keystone XL
  • 15 hours Nigeria Files Suit Against JP Morgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 22 hours Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 1 day Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 1 day Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 1 day Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 1 day OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 2 days Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 2 days Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 2 days Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 2 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 2 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 2 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 2 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 3 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 3 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 3 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 3 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 3 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 3 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 3 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 3 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 4 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 4 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 4 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 4 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 4 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 4 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 4 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 4 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 5 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 5 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 5 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 7 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 7 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
Alt Text

Is This The End Of Nuclear Power In The UK?

The UK has been planning…

Alt Text

Nuclear Power's Resurgence In The Middle East

While nuclear power loses popularity…

The U.S. Is Losing Its Most Potent Weapon Against Climate Change

Power Plant

Just when it needs it most, the United States is losing its most potent weapon in the fight against climate change. One nuclear plant has been closed in Vermont, two are under threat of closure in Illinois, and the only plant in climate-conscious California is set to close by 2025.

Just these four plants represent a substantial withdrawal of clean, carbon-free electricity from the market, mostly to be replaced by natural gas, and some wind and solar. Gas will do the bulk of the generating, and it is a carbon-emitter -- less than coal, but a carbon source nonetheless.

What is more, these plants are up and running, which means none of the pollution associated with construction, steel-making or quarrying will have to be repeated. Some, including Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, have expressed fears that 20 more nuclear plants may yet close.

The ostensible reason for these closures is that market forces dictate them. That bald statement implies that electricity is bought and sold as freely as any multi-sourced commodity.

But electricity is not traded in any conventional way.

The trouble started when the U.S. decided to deregulate electricity markets in the 1990s. The goal had nobility: Consumers would have choice. At least that is how it was sold by advocates, such as Enron.

Well, choice did not really work for consumers. But it has worked for some large industrial customers, who have been able to shop for price. Related: What Will Trump’s Nuclear Energy Policy Look Like?

Mostly, deregulation has created two kinds of utilities: those that swallowed the deregulation pill, and those that did not, mostly in the South. The northern tier of utilities, under pressure from their state governments, deregulated, some even selling off their generating assets.

The result has been other than anticipated: Consumers have had little or no choice, and the market has set about exterminating long-lived plants, like nuclear, in favor of today's cheapest fuel – at this moment, natural gas.

The utilities which have remained strictly regulated by their state utility commissions have been more secure financially and able to raise money more cheaply. The leader in this pack, the giant Southern Company, headquartered in Atlanta, has become a technological innovator as well as a builder of new nuclear plants.

Deregulation of the telephone monopoly -- often cited during the passion to deregulate electricity -- created a profusion of innovations. By contrast, deregulating electricity has just brought about a rush to the cheapest fuel of the day.

Electric utilities operate what are known as natural monopolies. Competing entities cannot install a new set of transmission wires, so the deregulated electric market had to be contrived. It was also subject to political and cultural manipulation, as the solar and wind lobbies insisted that their product get preference. Coal was edged out financially, before environmental concerns. Related: Algeria Plans To Boost Oil Output By 30%

Deregulated utilities have formed transmission organizations to rationalize the system. These are the independent system operators, such as the Midwest ISO or PJM in the Mid-Atlantic. They auction power and the auction system favors the cheapest kilowatt on offer.

That sounds fair, right? Not quite. Some of the power comes from wind and solar, which has been subsidized by an array of tax preferences and other government supports.

Many states have renewable energy portfolios which decree that a percentage of the power has to come from these renewable resources. This is fine because they produce no carbon. But they do not produce that much reliable electricity either. It takes a lot of solar arrays or wind turbines -- and then only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing -- to produce the same electricity as a nuclear power plant or an old-fashioned, coal-fired power plant. They need reliable backup – and that is natural gas, a fossil fuel. Moreover, to replace a nuclear plant with renewables chews up a lot of land, whether solar arrays or wind farms.

Imperfect markets produce imperfect results.

By Llewellyn King for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • stevansky on July 19 2016 said:
    Nuclear is a very attractive source of energy from the standpoint of sustainability and affordability to consumers, but it has little to no impact where global warming is concerned. Anyone who has made the effort to examine the corpus delicti of the climate alarmists has realized by now that most if not all of their assumptions and theories amount to nothing. There can be no doubt that climate is changing, as it has been for thousands of years and will for thousands more. North America used to be covered in a sheet of ice so huge it's hard to imagine while the Sahara Desert used to be a lush paradise full of animal life. CO2 isn't the villain that the politicians and their collaborators have made it out to be. Just a Ponzi scheme on steroids on it's last quivering legs as society wakes up and realizes it has been lied to.
  • Jeff in Dallas on July 20 2016 said:
    I disagree with the statement that deregulation did not result in choices for consumers. Its worked well for us in Texas where we have a huge number of choices AND some of the lowest electric rates in the nation (mine is 7.5 cents per kW-hr) AND became a leader in non-hydro renewables (Texas has almost as much wind power as the rest of the states combined) AND the lowest state/local energy taxes & subsidies AND successful large carbon-free nuclear plants that make up about 5% of the nation's total nuclear power.

    What's not to like? Why hasn't deregulation worked as well elsewhere?

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News