By Christopher Goins
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant was listed as one of almost 40 nuclear reactors across the U.S. that is at risk of closing early, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.
The lone commercial nuclear power plant in Maryland might be on its way to early retirement for primarily economic reasons, the report’s author said. No dates were given for any reactors on the list and the author insists he’s not making predictions.
A spokeswoman for Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, the owner of Calvert Cliffs, said in response to the report that there are no plans to retire the plant early. The company brags on its website that the plant got a 20-year extension of its license in 2000 after replacing the steam generators.
“It usually takes a precipitator to create the crisis,” said Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Vermont school’s energy institute. “Calvert Cliffs (reactors) have had some history of liability issues or safety issues and outages issues. It’s one of these reactors where the economic context is not very bright,” said Cooper. “And then the question is does something come along to put it off the edge?”
Report says economics, costly repairs drive early closings
Cooper explained that when it comes to ownership fights to keep nuclear facilities open, if the “economics are heavy enough”–that is, financially difficult–then stakeholders in the company will walk away from the plant. He noted that this May, Dominion Power walked away from one of its earliest nuclear acquisitions, Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin.
“The [cash] margins at Calvert Cliffs according to Credit Suisse is substantially lower than the margin was at Kewaunee,” Cooper told Maryland Reporter.
“So that means they are not generating a lot of cash to cover their other expenses,” Cooper said. “And that’s what puts them on what I call the economic razor’s edge.”
Plant owners proud of clean energy, economic boost to area
Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, which joint owns the plant with Electricite de France, responded to the report, saying that it has “no information” to suggest its “facilities would retire before their licensed operating lives are up.”
“Due to the nature of our company’s structure, any decision to retire a plant early would have to be made by the board and our parent companies, EDF and EXELON,” wrote Cynthia Angus, Constellation Director of Communications, in an email. CORRECTED 7/30 based on revised information from Angus: The license renewals for Calvert 1 and Calvert 2, the nuclear reactors in Lusby, Md., about 40 miles southeast of Waldorf, will be effective in 2034 and 2036
2015 and 2016 respectively. They power over 1 million homes, according to the company.
“We are proud of the operating histories of our facilities as well as the clean energy and economic boost they provide to the communities we serve,” she stated.
Report calls nuclear energy ‘expensive, uneconomical’
The report comes at a time when four U.S. plants have already announced their retirement and just a two months after the Lusby, Md. power plant experienced one of its reactors failing temporarily, which Constellation said did have a financial impact.
Constellation did not disclose the financial impact due to competitive reasons.
What makes the announced retirements of the plants so significant is that virtually none of them were predicted in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2013 Annual Energy Outlook — released in April — even when one of the announcements came in the fall of 2012.
“Apparently DOE can not even forecast events adverse to its nuclear imperatives when those events have already occurred,” said Peter Bradford, a Vermont Law professor and former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, during a conference call with Cooper last Wednesday.
Bradford added that the 2012 EIA Annual Energy Outlook was “even less reality-based,” noting that the EIA predicted in its low estimate that no reactor other than Oyster Creek were forecasted to close until 2029.
The report concludes that nuclear reactors “have never been competitive” at any stage of their existence.
“They are not competitive because the U.S. has the technical ability and a rich, diverse resource base to meet the need for electricity with lower cost, less risky alternatives,” Cooper concluded in his report.
Shale competing with nuclear for energy production
Heartland Institute’s Science Director Jay Lehr said that because of the “shale gas revolution” — a 2012 study estimated shale gas to represent over half of all U.S. natural gas production by 2035 — nuclear energy really has to compete on the open market for with other inexpensive sources.
“Whether the U.S. builds another plant is questionable because of the shale gas,” Lehr said. He added that “certainly not all of” the 38 plants in the study will fight off closings. They would then apply for license recertification.
He says he “totally” agrees with Cooper’s conclusion that policy attempts to stave off the “economic reality of nuclear power will be costly, ineffective and counterproductive.”
As for the possibility of fixing reactors to avert early shut downd, Cooper pointed out that the now-retired Crystal River and San Onofre reactors in Florida and California were fixes that broke and a second round of repairs would be extremely expensive.
Nuclear energy safety debated
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and an expensive way to get our energy,” wrote Emily Scarr, state advocate for consumer group MarylandPIRG, in an e-mail.
“The decision to close other aging reactors such as San Onofre is a sign that the industry is starting to wise-up to the fact that the public supports more cost-effective ways to get our energy,” she continued.
Lehr believes nuclear energy is the “safest form of energy.” He said there is hope for nuclear if the U.S. follows in Russia’s steps and begins to produce much smaller 200 megawatt modules rather than the 1000 megawatt or larger reactors that are currently spread across the country.
“I honestly believe you could build a very good power plant for half the price,” Lehr said.
Calvert Cliffs may be on the “Most at Risk” list, but it still isn’t one of the top nine which are at the greatest risk of shutting down early.
Judgments about the viability of any given nuclear
plant are business decisions made by energy companies based on economic factors
unique to their market and facilities.
Prior to this year, not a single one of the nation’s 104 reactors had closed
for any reason since 1998. More to the point, nuclear energy facilities showed
their worth during the recent oppressive heat wave that baked the eastern
states. Nuclear power plants are by far the most efficient and reliable
generators of electricity. Throughout the heat wave, all but a handful of
reactors in 31 states operated at full power around the clock. That is the
strongest possible viability statement.
The fundamentals in the electricity sector continue to present a strong case
for the value of nuclear energy. Natural gas prices are low today, but already
are rising. Historically, rapid increases in the use of natural gas for
electricity production or other industries have resulted in major price
volatility. That is why diversity of fuel supply for electricity generation is
one of the most important aspects of a secure energy supply portfolio. That is
particularly true given the Energy Information Administration’s projected need
for a 28-percent increase in electricity demand by 2040, or the equivalent of
about 340 large-scale power plants.
Senior Vice President-Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute
this report is so misleading……………..!!!!!!!
So what many of these experts are saying is, it’s better to destroy tens of thousands of acres of open space to extract natural gas (and oil) from shale than to use a source of power that has an extremely safe history and has a much smaller impact on the environment. Really??!!?? Wonder how these Vermont legal minds woulds react if energy companies began stripping their scenic Green Mountains for shale.
…there are no shale basins in Vermont though.
I kind of figured that. I get the impression that some folks in Vermont want to have energy available, they just don’t want anything that produces it in their state.
Do you remember Gov. O’Malley’s original wind energy plan that would have put turbines on Maryland mountain tops ? That would be much more destructive, requiring many acres of land for the turbines and their attendant ” infrastructure “, thus destroying the mountain scenery…
Fracking has a much smaller “footprint” than wind or solar..
I agree with you regarding nuclear power, but the “environnmentalists” would never allow it… Same with coal plants…