Nuclear power shutdowns won't spike power prices

[Marlin]

Nuclear power shutdowns won't spike power prices


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180619122409.htm

[SloGlo]

any thyme a vendor controls the market, price will go up.

[hamsamich]

It might not  spike them but it will probably go up, but like sloglo kinda says...one less source of producing power will cause the ones that are left to have more market control...bad.  I'm pretty sure it went up in Vermont, and who can tell what causes the power to continue to go up in California...probably a combination of things.

[TVA]

Wont change it one iota

[hamsamich]

Well it did in other states....

[SloGlo]

any thyme a vendor controls the market, price will go up.

aye can knot think of won venue ware it did knot happen. eye could reference gov't control of health insurance, butt that wood got political see i won't.

[TVA]

First name the states.

Second explain the math property by which a business folds because it's prices are too high thus it isnt selling anything... then it's folding causes prices to go up?

Wont change one iota.

[hamsamich]

https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/07/24/38334/california-power-prices-up-59-percent-after-san-on/

https://energyvulture.com/2015/09/06/electricity-market-price-impacts-from-the-san-onofre-nuclear-plant-shutdown/

I think this is more than an iota.  But I wouldn't bet my retirement on a spike that is for sure.  And like I said, California is crazy so trying to make sense of what happens there is hard.  But there aren't many other recent ones.  Crystal river but I need more coffee.

Well I can't find anything definitive on VY, but so few nukes have been shuttered it is hard to find, and no big ones recently except for SanO.  Future prices were affected in VT, MA and NH right after VY was shuttered.  That is for sure an iota but not much of an effect.  Seems like VT prices went up a bit but not much when I looked into it.  So hey, I guess I was wrong about Vermont.  But all the tree huggers up there are somewhat upset at what took the place of the nuke plant...and it wasn't new renewables. 

Maybe after nuclear power dies we will know for sure.  Oh I thought it was already dead?  If you stop speaking in such absolute terms you would make more sense.  You do know iota means basically zero right?  So any effect at all is more than an iota.  Do I really need to explain the market effects of removing 2.4 GW from the grid, nuclear or not?  You are an SRO right?  I know how hard that class is so I know you have some sense.  Since you love to split hairs yourself and you love to talk in absolutes you have given me no choice....too easy.  You should stop doing that.  It would make you wrong way less often.  But it would for sure take away from my weekly chuckles at your expense.

A forum is for throwing ideas off one another and receiving help, remember that.

[GLW]

when natural gas replaces nuclear, at this moment in time, prices should not go up,...

typically, over the last two decades, lost nuclear is replaced by natural gas,...

as has been hammered out multiple times in detail across the forums of this website,....

there is little to no new hydro attainable in the contiguous 48,...

wind, solar, geothermal are either too intermittent, too far away, too little, too pie in the sky,...

small niche market victories for the aforementioned,...

overall waste of time and money,...

except you do get to feel good about yourself,....

and some people just need that, no matter how much it costs,...

coal may just be more evil than nuclear, so coal burning is being regulated into non existence,...

then again, in the future, coal in the ground could be as valuable as gold in some post contemporary geoacademicpoliticapedagogy,...

oil is the evil cousin of coal,...

and so we burn natural gas,...

that's why they have performed major gas line expansions (except in the suicidal northeast, go figure),....

even in Californication (ref Fresno County, British Columbia, PG&E, Bechtel),...

because we have a DOE but no Energy Policy,...

but then, it's Saturday and the Incredibles 2 screens in an hour and a half,...

gotta go,...

first world problems you know,...

almost forgot,...

(sic) 4 beercort,...

[hamsamich]

pretty much in agreement with that.  at least they are reasonable suppositions.  incredibles 2....soon as I can get some time.

[Marlin]

    I think it is hard to debate the original article as it is fairly narrow in scope and a plant closing because it is not economically competitive would seem to lower cost with a cheaper source being used. Long term would seem to be different as natural gas is projected to increase in cost as it market changes. If we start exporting, it will go up for example and that is a very likely outcome to our rapidly expanding natural gas supplies even with nuclear plant closures.

We seem to be at the nadir of the natural gas price curve. Probably good news for nukes that are currently economically competitive.

https://knoema.com/ncszerf/natural-gas-prices-forecast-long-term-2017-to-2030-data-and-charts

[TVA]

Good point. In 15 years maybe.

[Marlin]

Good point. In 15 years maybe.

Plans to maintain and build are that far in advance so I think it is a cogent point now.     

[TVA]

No one will build anything nuclear

[hamsamich]

Except for when Vogtle is completed right...or anything outside of the U.S. anytime really soon?   Good Lord.  Really?  You do know Vogtle is being built as we speak, correct?  Vogtle is nuclear.

[hamsamich]

Is this guy for real?

[SloGlo]

watt happens when yew shut down yore nukes.


https://www.utilitydive.com/news/massachusetts-utilities-conclude-contract-negotiations-to-import-hydro/525797/

[MMM]

The problem with shutting down nuclear is that our production costs are pretty steady. When nuclear is replaced with LNG, the cost becomes more fluid, specifically based on the cost of fuel. While it probably costs a dual unit nuclear plant $25-30/MH-hr (I don't remember where I heard those numbers), that cost is pretty constant as our fuel doesn't have huge price variations and the highest cost are the people. Right now, an LNG plant pays around $15-20/MW-hr, however, if the cost of LNG goes up even a little, say due to increased demand from more LNG power plants, that price will jump quickly, that cost then gets passed down to the consumers.


As far as no one building more nuclear, that partially correct. After Vogtle there probably won't be any more of the "current" nuclear plants built, due to the cost and construction time, not accounting for the various approvals. NuScale is designing SMRs, with NRC approval, so we might start seeing those within the next decade or so.

[TVA]

One unit at Vogtle will never be complete.

[SloGlo]

One unit at Vogtle will never be complete.

witch speaks volumes four u.s. of a. expertise inn awl things nuclear, construction, dinance,n government.

[SloGlo]

No one will build anything nuclear

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-SNC-Lavalin-signs-agreement-on-Bellefonte-completion-0706188.html#.WxmriNSolQI.linkedin


http://www.powermag.com/first-ap1000-nuclear-units-reach-key-milestones/