| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,9 @@ |
|
1 |
+Nuclear plants are a major source of baseload power in the United States. |
|
2 |
+WNA 2016 – World Nuclear Association Industry Advocacy Group, “Nuclear Power in the USA,” World Nuclear Association (Web). September 26, 2016. Accessed October 7, 2016. |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+Nuclear power plays a major role. The USA has 99 nuclear power reactors in 30 states, operated by 30 different power companies, and in 2015 they produced 798 TWh. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year and accounting for 20 of total electricity generated. Capacity factor has risen from 50 in the early 1970s, to 70 in 1991, and it passed 90 in 2002, remaining at around this level since. In 2015 it was a record 91.9. The industry invests about $7.5 billion per year in maintenance and upgrades of the plants. |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+Taking baseload power stations offline dramatically comprises the reliability of the energy grid and the wellbeing of all the people who depend on it. Loris 15 describes the threat of losing baseload power in the context of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would decommission a large number of coal-fired plants. |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+Loris 15 - Nicolas Loris Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer,” Heritage Foundation: Backgrounder #3025 on Energy and Environment (Web). July 7, 2015. Accessed October 7, 2016. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/the-many-problems-of-the-epas-clean-power-plan-and-climate-regulations-a-primer |
|
9 |
+One of the primary concerns among many electricity-grid operators across the country is the power plant regulations’ effect on grid reliability. With uncertainty looming as to which of the EPA’s building blocks will stand in court, taking a massive amount of baseload power offline could create huge strains on the grid that generates and delivers electricity to consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that more than double the coal-fired power plants will retire as a result of the Clean Power Plan compared to a scenario without the regulation.23 The CPP itself threatens the means to aiding such a traumatic transition from coal by causing the price of natural gas and natural gas infrastructure to increase, making it less economical to build. At the very least, the implementation of the CPP means a very expensive and unnecessary transition for ratepayers.24 A number of regional grid operators as well as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), an international nonprofit established to ensure the reliability of bulk power in North America, raised issues with the proposed regulation.25¶ NERC wrote in its initial report of the EPA’s regulations that “new reliability challenges may arise with the integration of generation resources that have different ERS Essential Reliability Services characteristics than the units that are projected to retire”—in other words, the intermittent renewables on which the EPA depends to replace retired coal electricity increase the risk of reliability problems. Further, NERC states that the “proposed timeline does not provide enough time to develop sufficient resources to ensure continued reliable operation of the grid by 2020. To attempt to do so would increase the use of controlled load shedding and potential for wide-scale, uncontrolled outages.”26¶ Regional grid operators—the Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission Organizations (ISOs/RTOs)—have expressed similar concerns. The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) warned that “unless the proposed CPP is modified, the SPP region faces serious, detrimental impacts on reliable operation of the bulk electric system—introducing the very real possibility of rolling blackouts or cascading outages that will have significant impacts on human health, public safety, and economic activity.”27 |