1
0

Cost to Replace California Nuclear Plant With Solar: $15 Billion


 invite response                
2016 Jun 22, 12:18pm   2,127 views  5 comments

by null   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Bloomberg analysis based on current prices, full replacement and greater use of natural gas may challenge emissions goals. PG&E Corp.’s plan to shut California’s last nuclear power plant by 2025 would cost $15 billion if all its output is replaced with solar-generated electricity at current prices, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts.

Actual costs could be lower because the company expects to compensate for lower demand and replace only part of the production, energy policy analyst Rob Barnett said Wednesday in an interview.

The multibillion-dollar estimate underscores the costs that utilities and consumers face across the U.S. as power generated by cheaper plants overwhelms nuclear replacement costs, said Kit Konolige, co-author of the note. California’s goal to get half its power from carbon-free sources by 2030 will be challenging without nuclear, although few states can match the wind and solar resources of California, he said.

Diablo Canyon’s two reactors account for 20 percent of annual power production in PG&E’s territory, according to the utility owner’s agreement to shut the plant. Based on current prices and generating capacity for solar power, the company would need 10,500 megawatts of new solar installations to replace all of Diablo Canyon’s output, the research concluded.

“Gas-power plants will probably be needed for backup when wind and solar plants aren’t available,” Barnett and Konolige wrote. “Greater use of natural gas may make California’s emission goals more challenging to meet.”

PG&E didn’t immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment.

The $15 billion Bloomberg Intelligence estimate excludes cost of decommissioning, or removing radioactive materials from the site and restoring it as state-owned beach. The plant’s decommissioning fund is about $1 billion shy of the $3.8 billion cost estimated in the agreement to close the plant, Barnett said. PG&E will ask that customers make up any shortfall, Earley said.

Most of the cost to close the plant will be for replacement power and it’s too early to estimate that, Geisha Williams, the company’s president for electric operations, told reporters.

The plan calls for the utility to solicit bids for energy-efficiency programs in 2018, and bids for energy efficiency and greenhouse-gas free generation by 2020.

The agreement reflects the failure of state-run carbon-dioxide markets at sustaining nuclear plants amid competition from gas-burning plants, Barnett said. While California utilities pay about $12.50 a metric ton for carbon emissions from gas-fueled plants, a price above $100 would be needed to justify new nuclear investment, he said.

“California’s carbon market does zilch to boost nuclear power,” Barnett and Konolige wrote.

The Bloomberg estimate doesn’t include potential costs of new transmission lines, back-up resources for solar, or potential tax credits from renewable energy investments, Barnett said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/cost-to-replace-california-nuclear-plant-with-solar-15-billion

#solar #PGandE #California #windpower # Usinglessandpayingmore

And there's even more pain in store so get ready to pay up - big time: Local government agencies are set to lose about $26.75 million in annual revenue as a result of PG&E’s decision to close Diablo Canyon power plant. However, the loss in revenue does not appear to be catastrophic for any one agency.

http://calcoastnews.com/2016/06/planning-begins-loss-diablo-canyon-tax-revenue/

Comments 1 - 5 of 5        Search these comments

1   curious2   2016 Jun 22, 1:02pm  

anonymous says

Actual costs could be lower because the company expects to compensate for lower demand and replace only part of the production....

If global warming continues, air conditioning demand may increase.

anonymous says

The $15 billion Bloomberg Intelligence estimate excludes cost of decommissioning, or removing radioactive materials from the site and restoring it as state-owned beach. The plant’s decommissioning fund is about $1 billion shy of the $3.8 billion cost estimated in the agreement to close the plant, Barnett said.

I don't see how they can remove the radioactive waste until they find someplace to put it. Following the 2011 shutdown of Yucca Mountain for political reasons, America won't have a permanent nuclear waste repository until probably at least 2030.

2   RC2006   2016 Jun 22, 1:20pm  

15 billion, how much would it cost to subsidize solar panels on rooftops to make up the difference in power lose and storage?

3   turtledove   2016 Jun 22, 1:25pm  

Anything that's this much of an eyesore should never have been allowed. Since they closed San Onofre (San Clemente), we are left with what can only be described as giant skyward pointing, erect-nippled titty sculptures. You know that the designers had to have been laughing their asses off.

4   turtledove   2016 Jun 22, 1:26pm  

This is when they get excited...

5   Blurtman   2016 Jun 22, 6:36pm  

Local RE values must have gone up.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions