Nuclear Power Under Attack Again - From Ballot Box (James Conca) USofA

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/04/18/nuclear-power-underattack-again-this-time-from-the-ballot-box/#7a93052e1015 Please see link above for original text, embedded hot links and comments.

Paul Escen, APS

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona produces the most electricity of any power plant in America, over 30 billion kWhs per year, and is also the largest single producer of lowcarbon electricity.

Arizona’s Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station could be forced to close in six years, instead of twenty-seven, if voters approve a renewable-energy ballot measure, according to plant owner Arizona Public Service Company (APS).

The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, HCR 2017, would amend the state constitution to require utilities to get half their electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2030, up from the present mandate of 15% by 2025.

That is a big lift. And some in the State Legislature agree.

Few, if any, governments have that high a mandate by 2030, which is only 12 years away. Even at double the 2012-2017 build rate for renewables, 12 years is not enough time to replace Arizona’s coal plants, let alone coal plus nuclear.

1

Although ballot supporters say APS is overreacting, APS officials said the measure would force so much solar and wind development that there would be too much energy on the grid during half the year when Arizonans are not cranking up their air conditioners.

EIA/Env. Progress

Nuclear from the state’s one nuclear power plant provides 36% of all of Arizona’s electricity, hydroelectric about 6%, solar and wind about 4%.

Recommended by Forbes

Such oversupply forces the shutdown of baseload power plants, particularly nuclear, which just provides electricity constantly. Varying their output for no good reason wastes money and fuel.

This is exactly what California is struggling with – too much solar when it’s not needed and not enough solar when it is. But they use the surrounding states to buffer that problem. They even use Palo Verde for this assist.

Tom Steyer, the former California hedge fund billionaire turned political activist, is pushing this Arizona ballot initiative. He wants to replace Palo Verde with natural gas and renewables, although it would mainly be natural gas. Normally serious about addressing climate change, Steyer doesn’t seem to understand that renewables are supposed to replace fossil fuel, especially coal, not other low carbon sources like nuclear or hydro.

2

The three nuclear power reactors at Palo Verde produce about 36% of Arizona’s electricity, which is almost 80% of the state’s emission-free electricity (see figures). Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station also uses 100% recycled water, and maintains a ‘Zero Discharge’ status – no water is discharged to rivers, streams or oceans.

Palo Verde is the biggest power plant in America, producing more energy than Grand Coulee Dam, which has the biggest nameplate capacity but only half the capacity factor of Palo Verde.

EIA/Env. Progress

Nuclear from the state’s one nuclear power plant provides 79% of Arizona’s clean electricity, hydroelectric about 13%, solar and wind about 8%.

Palo Verde produces enough energy to power 4 million people, over half of Arizona’s 7 million population, although some of it is exported out of state. In contrast, non-hydro renewables in Arizona, dominated by solar, generate about 4% of the state’s electricity. Coal produces about 25% and natural gas about 30%. So the clean energy produced in the state is overwhelmingly nuclear.

Palo Verde Nuclear Station Arizona hydro power Arizona non-hydro renewables

32,800,000,000 kWhs/year 5,300,000,000 kWhs/year 2,100,000,000 kWhs/year 3

Palo Verde produces about 15 times the electricity that non-hydro renewables do in Arizona, so closing it and attempting to build up renewables to take its place, as well as also replacing coal, will take almost 30 times what renewables produce now, highly unlikely given the maximum PV solar manufacturing rates available to Arizona. Not to mention the amount of steel, over 1,500 tons per MW, required for that many systems, more than five times the total annual steel output of the United States.

Failure to reach this level of renewables by 2024, just as Palo Verde would be closing, ends up increasing natural gas dramatically. This also means solar would only be replacing another lowcarbon energy source, nuclear, and would make no dent in replacing coal, let alone gas or oil.

Note: the only way to replace oil is to go to fully electric vehicles which would require an additional 6 billion kWhs of low-carbon electricity to charge a fleet of 2 million EVs in Arizona by 2030 (3,000 kWhs/year/vehicle) to replace the existing 2.3 million internal combustion engines in the state.

The push to close Palo Verde assumes APS would end up with enough solar capacity to produce about 28 billion kWhs assuming a generous overall capacity factor of 30% for solar, although rooftop systems are less than 20%.

Even with a great capacity factor, 28 billion kWhs is still less than Palo Verde consistently produces, and would be a step backwards in the state’s path to a cleaner energy future.

APS also says the cost of electricity would rise significantly if this measure passes. California and Germany have seen their electricity rates increase by 23% and by 50%, respectively, since they started closing nuclear plants and scaling up renewables. New England and New York, as well.

All of this is coming at the same time some states are looking to protect existing nuclear from these warped market forces. New Jersey, Connecticut and Minnesota are the latest states trying to prevent the premature closing of their nuclear power plants.

‘Three years ago, we saw only about a dozen nuclear-related bills in the state houses; last year we saw more than 100 of them,’ said Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The underlying problem is that many people who seem to care about climate change can’t get over their historic hatred of nuclear, incorrectly founded on fear and misunderstanding. They also assume that giving subsidies and mandates to renewables, without understanding how the energy markets work, will reduce fossil fuel, but that has not borne out in practice.

Unfortunately, these mandates encourage a lot of natural gas as well as renewables, while hurting the other low-carbon sources that are also baseload - hydro and nuclear. Unless hydro and nuclear are also designated low-carbon or clean, they get damaged along with coal.

4

After that, no amount of ignorance will help the states achieve their climate goals. This warning has been echoed by every leading climatologist in the world, including Jim Hansen and the IPCC. Various studies have shown the economic and environmental harm of closing nuclear plants early. The Brattle Group just released such a study this week, calculating that closing four nuclear power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania will raise gross electricity costs for customers by around $400 million for Ohio, $285 million for Pennsylvania, and $1.5 billion across the entire utility’s region (PJM).

If Steyer’s initiative succeeds, Palo Verde will close in 2024, twenty years ahead of schedule.

Palo Verde just got a 20-year extension from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to run until 2045, so closing it early will throw away at least 700 billion kWhs of clean electricity, and would nullify the benefits of all renewable sources in Arizona.

If closed, the plant would still have nuclear waste on site but wouldn’t be producing any revenue to deal with it or to dispose of it - which we know how to do if we’re just allowed to. Not to mention losing 5,000 jobs in Arizona and the largest single tax revenue for the locals and the state.

Michael Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization had stronger words: ‘It’s hard to say which is more outrageous: that billionaire renewable energy investor Tom Steyer is trying to replace Arizona’s largest source of clean energy with a mix of natural gas and solar, or that he’s doing it in the name of climate change. Whatever the case, anyone who is concerned about air pollution, global warming, or simply maintaining cheap and reliable electricity for Arizona should denounce Steyer’s initiative and demand he withdraw it from the ballot.’

Shellenberger is also a candidate for Governor of California, running as a progressive who understands the technical and political issues surrounding energy and climate.

The Palo Verde reactors are actually good for over 80 years, as designed, especially as they are so well-maintained. The initial license period of 40 years, and relicensing every 20 years thereafter, were just arbitrary numbers decided upon by the original Atomic Energy Agency in the 1950s to make sure power plants would stay in compliance as regulations changed. Many nuclear plants have already applied for their second re-licensing, for a total of 80 years.

Getting rid of Arizona’s biggest source of low-carbon electricity by closing Palo Verde decades ahead of schedule is foolish, and counter to any plan to seriously address climate change in the state.

Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com

5