the cloudy face of the electricity future · the cloudy face of the electricity future matthew l....

13
The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute [email protected] @mattlwald ISO-New England Consumer Liaison Group March 2, 2017 • Westborough, Mass.

Upload: others

Post on 30-Sep-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future

Matthew L. Wald

Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute [email protected] @mattlwald

ISO-New England Consumer Liaison Group March 2, 2017 • Westborough, Mass.

Page 2: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1996 2002 2008 2014

Solid Capacity Factor in 2016

U.S. Nuclear Plant Capacity Factor • U.S. reactors 2016 capacity factor: 91.5%*

• Nuclear plants generated 805 billion kWh in 2016*

• Average refueling outage duration declined again:

2016: 35 days

2015: 36 days

2014: 37 days

Source: Energy Information Administration * NEI estimates

91.5% in 2016* 92.2% in 2015 91.7% in 2014 89.9% in 2013

Page 3: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald
Page 4: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald
Page 5: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald
Page 6: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

The need for (seasonal) electricity storage will be exacerbated with increasing penetration of intermittent renewables.

Seasonal Mismatch between Supply and Demand ERCOT, CAISO, MISO, PJM Super Region

Average Demand (right axis)

Wind (left axis)

Solar (left axis)

70%

60%

300

250

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

200

150

100

50

0% 0

Ave

rage

Cap

acit

yFa

cto

r[%

]

Ave

rage

Load

[GW

]

Page 7: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

-564

-174 -135

-19 -12

Nuclear Hydro Wind Solar Geothermal

U.S. Carbon-Free Electricity Sources

2015

Sources: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and generation data from the Energy Information Administration.

Recognizing Nuclear Energy’s Carbon-Free Value

U.S. Electric Power Industry CO2 Avoided Million Metric Tons 2015

Nuclear62.4%

Wind14.9%

Hydro19.3%

Solar2.1%

Geothermal1.3%

Page 8: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

Impacts of Losing A Nuclear Plant

A typical nuclear power plant:

• 400-700 permanent jobs plus equivalent number of indirect jobs in local area to support the plant

• Plant salaries 36% higher than average in the local area

• $16 million per year in state and local taxes

Page 9: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

$35.50 $32.90 $44.52

$67.40

$65

$52

$78

AverageNuclear Plant

Multi-UnitNuclear Plant

Single UnitNuclear Plant

EIA IHS PowerOutlook

Lazard

Levelized Cost New Combined Cycle

Better Deal for Consumers ... Existing Nuclear or New Combined Cycle Gas?

Sources: Existing nuclear costs are 2015 total generating costs (fuel, O&M, capital) from Electric Utility Cost Group. Gas-fired combined cycle costs are levelized costs from (1) Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2016; (2) IHS North American Power Market Outlook, September 30, 2016;

(3) Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, 9.0, 2015.

$53.40

$ per megawatt-hour

Upper end of range

Lower end of range

Page 10: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

NuScale’s “Walk-Away-Safe” Design

$68.60

Page 11: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

Add More Modules as Needed

Page 12: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald

TerraPower’s Traveling Wave

Page 13: The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future · The Cloudy Face of the Electricity Future Matthew L. Wald Senior Communications Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute mlw@nei.org @mattlwald