Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,695 posts)
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:49 PM Jun 2014

US carbon regulations may spur new nuclear capacity in long term: S&P

Proposed US regulations proposed earlier this week that would require existing power plants to reduce carbom emissions could favor some new nuclear plant construction in the long term, as risks from the technology fade with new plant designs, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said in a report Thursday.

While natural gas generation will remain the "main option" for utilities seeking to add -capacity in coming years, nuclear reactors will offer companies a way to maintain fuel diversity in the face of a surge in gas-fired units, the report said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulations set a goal of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. "Although all options for cleaner power generation are on the table, it's clear that nuclear power plants also offer an opportunity for the utilities to support long-term demand growth while avoiding increased carbon emissions," wrote S&P analyst Judith Waite.

...snip...

Worries that nuclear plants cannot be built on time and to budget may be fading, the report said. "Although nuclear power does come with risk, we believe that changes to plant designs mean that credit risk isn't as great as it might otherwise be for those who choose the nuclear route," the report said.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/us-carbon-regulations-may-spur-new-nuclear-capacity-21723537
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US carbon regulations may spur new nuclear capacity in long term: S&P (Original Post) FBaggins Jun 2014 OP
I don't see this as a bad thing? Spider Jerusalem Jun 2014 #1
I don't either... but one correction FBaggins Jun 2014 #2
France gets about 73.3% of their electricity from Nuclear generation... PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #3
It depends on how you look at it. FBaggins Jun 2014 #4
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
1. I don't see this as a bad thing?
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:00 PM
Jun 2014

Nuclear is far less dangerous in terms of deaths per terawatt than any other major electrical generating source (for coal you have to take into account mining accidents + respiratory illnesses). And for everyone saying "butbut...FUKUSHIMA! CHERNOBYL! Fear!", any nuclear plants in the USA are not likely to be built with inherently dangerous Soviet reactor designs, or in seismically active zones on floodplains. If the tradeoff is 20 years of nuclear while developing new carbon-neutral technologies, then it's probably the best option available. (Note that 90% of France's electrical generating capacity is nuclear and they haven't had any major incidents.)

FBaggins

(26,695 posts)
2. I don't either... but one correction
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:07 PM
Jun 2014
If the tradeoff is 20 years of nuclear while developing new carbon-neutral technologies, then it's probably the best option available.

If you're only going to use it for 20 years, then they're too expensive... but that really won't be the case. We'll still be replacing coal plants well beyond 20 years from now.

FBaggins

(26,695 posts)
4. It depends on how you look at it.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:13 PM
Jun 2014

France is a big exporter of electricity. Their total nuclear generation has provided closer to 90% of demand (a few years ago)... even though it's closer to 75% of generation. It's just a question of how you score the exports.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»US carbon regulations may...