A group of “concerned citizens, scientists, business leaders, conservationists, and community leaders” sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos earlier this month, pleading for his involvement in saving the facilities and securing an economically viable future for nuclear power in Ohio.
Amazon, of course, has lately planted a firm footprint in Ohio’s retail and tech landscape. The letter’s authors point to Bezos’ “commitment to clean energy and job creation in Ohio” as a good prerequisite for the challenge ahead. The CEO has a history of supporting investments in nuclear fusion.
In essence, the letter encourages Bezos to include nuclear power in his company’s definition of renewable energy, opening the door to a possible business relationship between FirstEnergy and Amazon for future energy consumption at the retail giant’s Buckeye State facilities. (Note that FirstEnergy has signaled intent to sell the plants, but the running scuttlebutt is that both may continue to operate under new ownership.)
Ohio’s renewable energy standards were recently unfrozen, though there is yet another bill in the Statehouse that proposes to do away with the mandates altogether. Nuclear power is not included in the state’s renewable energy portfolio, the guiding document behind the standards. The move toward renewable investment is an ongoing debate in state and local government here.
Statewide, nuclear provides 14 percent of electricity generation in Ohio to wind and solar and hydropower’s 2.2 percent. The authors here argue that losing the nuclear plants would result in a dramatic increase in non-renewable energy sources, leading to more of the same Southeast Ohio natural gas drilling phenomenon that’s causing its own brand of environmental problems.
It’s a quandary worthy of public debate, and the timing of this letter reminds Ohioans that the energy and tech industries are intrinsically intertwined — and ultimately extremely important in the context of how state legislators draft policy going forward. Amazon’s economic clout could serve as a bellwether for how Ohio moves on the energy front. (The company has not yet responded publicly to the letter.)
This article appears in May 17-23, 2017.
This letter contains a blatant misrepresentation – the allegation that state and federal subsidies to renewable energy add up to 12 cents per KWh. The subsidy granted by PUCO to FirstEnergy and now held up by legal challenges was $200 million per year for three years. The legal proposal before the Ohio House of Fools is about $265 million per year in perpetuity. Total state spending on renewables in 2015 (the most recent year the PUCO has reported) was $42.6 million. Total spending statewide on efficiency was $140 million, but it created over $900 million in savings, as opposed to generation which creates a commodity which is then sold.
Spending $265 million on efficiency in Ohio would create enough efficiency savings to eliminate the need for the nuclear plants in six to eight years. But Ohio natural gas industry proponents are completing enough natural gas plants this year to eliminate the need for Davis Besse, about 20 miles from the plant. Next two years see several times the Perry Plant within 50 miles of that plant.
Nuclear power is an expensive distraction from a climate solution. Now that we have large scale wind and solar we have proof that a large number of turbines or panels function like a power plant – reliable and consistent. Some storage will be needed to eliminate the last remnant of natural gas, but it will be cheaper than keeping those plants running. Anything and everything is cheaper than keeping nuclear plants running.
F.E. lobby money to the Ohio house and senate, froze the requirements for wind, solar, and efficiency. They passed a separate law to increase wind farm setbacks from adjacent property lines. In so doing they destroyed far more jobs than exist at all the nuclear plants .
Davis Besse almost blew, it came close to forcing everyone to move out of this area permanently due to intentional negligence and falsifying their NRC required but unmonitored inspections of the reactor head. While they fibbed about inspecting the head of the reactor, leaking borid acid coolant was eating through the thick steel reactor head,, it ate clean through the steel,, all that was left was a pitted 3/8 inch thick inner liner that was bulging up into the hole in the head. They ignored signs of a leak, coolant level dropping (duh), coolant filters clogging.
Google this, “hole in the head reactor” then click on images,, you’ll see the huge hole in the reactor head that nearly exploded through allowing a highly pressurized (2000 p.s.i.) pool full of Boric Acid coolant and maybe some Uranium fuel rods to blow outward , potentially destroying coolant injector lines and control rod mechanisms that are on top of the head. Since the containment building is cracking , containment could have been breached right away, or after the likely subsequent hydrogen explosions. The plant is still running even though it was, by it’s design engineers, designed to be closed permanently by this time. Instead it’s been relicensed by the NRC because NRC’s main focus is to perpetuate nuclear power, apparently even in the face of intentional negligence, being rundown, and having a flawed design.
A meltdown scenario could see a bulldozer plowing a canal from the plant to Lake Erie in order to keep the Uranium fuel rods from burning and releasing highly radioactive elements into the air, many of them deadly, including Plutonium which is a byproduct of Uranium fission. It would not be a tasty additive for our drinking water. it would not make fishing or boating more fun. We would find another place far away to live, and in a hurry.
By contrast, wind, solar and efficiency are safe, and cheaper than nuclear power. Efficiency is the cheapest of all, it means we avoid having to make as much power and we reduce load and resistance on our grid,, and so we avoid building a new expensive grid. Wind is now cheaper than any method of generating electricity. Utility scale solar is cheaper than nuclear now, it’s price following a predictible decline due to constant technological and production advances. The Ohio house and senate should repeal the laws against competition and cheaper, safer energy. Efficiency , wind, and solar, save us money on our electric bill, nuclea r power increases our electric bill.
Lobby money is used against You 99.9% of the time. It should be a criminal offense.
Ned Ford challenges the per kW-hr renewables subsidy quoted in the environmentalist’s letter, but doesn’t state what he thinks the actual per kW-hr subsidy is. Instead, he launches into a discussion of absolute subsidy amounts. This is an example of intellectual dishonesty. It’s the per kW-hr subsidy that matters. If the (proposed) absolute nuclear subsidies are larger than those given to renewables, despite a much smaller per kW-hr subsidy, that tells you just how much non-polluting electricity these plants are generating, vs. all renewable energy in the state. That large amount of non-polluting generation is something of large, tangible value, and the market should reflect that.
Ford goes on to make three laughably false statements. First, that spending only $265 million on conservation would save more electricity than these plants generate. Second, that keeping these nuclear plants open would be the MOST expensive means of reducing CO2 emissions. And third, that renewable energy could provide most of the state’s power, despite their intermittentcy limitations.
How about putting those assertions to a genuine market test (as opposed to having policies that give huge subsidies to renewables only, and/or outright mandates for renewables use, regardless of cost)? That is, either give nuclear the same treatment as renewables (same subsidies, inclusion in mandates), or eliminate all such subsidies and mandates, and instead put a tax/price on CO2 emissions and air pollution, and let the market decide how to respond. (In essence that’s all that the environmentalists’ letter was requesting, i.e., to give nuclear similar treatment as renewables). If we did have such an even handed policy, I’m not sure that new nuclear plants would be built, but I can assure you that existing plants would not be closing.
The truth, contrary to Ford’s Orwellian (180-degrees-false) statement, is that keeping existing nuclear plants operating is the *least* expensive means of CO2 emissions reduction you will find. Evidence of this is the fact that these plants are only requesting 1-2 cents/kW-hr subsidy, whereas renewables projects get much higher overall subsidies than that.
Again, a genuine market test, which allows nuclear and renewables to compete on a fair playing field, would show which is the cheaper option. Such enlightened policies (i.e., putting a price on CO2 and pollution and letting the market respond) would also give conservation its full due, as the resulting increase in electricity cost would provide the proper incentive to conserve. Finally, under such a policy, the market would determine how much renewables could be added before their intermittentcy results in costs that make them uncompetitive with other clean energy options.
It shouldn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize the insanity and damage of shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants. All they want is 1/6 the subsidy given to solar infrastructure.. Renewable industry is against this because it will make VRE (variable renewable energy) look weak compared to the magnitude of nuclear fission.. The natural gas industry is against it because they know that nuclear is a THREAT to the existence of fossil fuel empire. People better read the fine print and wise up.. Its a “bailout” but so what? 90% of the state’s clean energy, 3.4e6 cars, or 14% of the composite energy. if they go down, we get 0% clean energy..
Jim Hopf- very well said. 100% agree.
I live in far western Ohio– California. It’s my air too ya know!
If we can’t eliminate all subsidies for all forms of electricity generation (my preferred option), then we should at least level the playing field so it is a fair competition. Ohio’s nuclear plants safely generate electricity without air pollution (unlike natural gas and especially coal), provide thousands of high-paying jobs, boost the economy, and they are reliable (unlike solar and wind). Plus they generate power affordably, which is why they require only a fraction of the subsidies per kW/hr compared to wind/solar. As an Ohioan and a radiation safety professional (with no ties to the nuclear industry), I urge our lawmakers preserve safe, clean, reliable, affordable nuclear energy in our state.
How is nuclear considered clean energy? What about all that waste it produces that is gonna be around for a long time?
Nobody has mentioned the nuclear waste that remains on site at Davis Besse and other nuclear plants that will remain dangerous forever and a day. The fuel rods that are too hot to go into dry casks are kept in fuel rod storage pool where they have to be cooled with pumped water. The pumped storage pools , have they been “re-wracked” ,, puts the rods closer together due to storage space limits. The rods burn hotter as they wait for the day when they can just be kept for an eternity in dry guarded dry casks. The utility companys’ own Edison Institute report claims that solar power will emerge as the biggest threat to the utility company’s current profit model. So they decided to destroy solar in Ohio and other states by giving lots of money to the Ohio house and senate, and same in many other states. Edison Institute report recognized that solar power keeps getting cheaper. The utilitys decided to impede solar, instead of owning it. That was and is their decision, as they beg for money for nuclear plants that are really dangerous and raise our electric bills. Their incredible arrogance is due to always getting their way with Ohio government.
Jim Hopf makes a fair point. I did present absolute numbers as a contrast to cents per KWh. That’s because the absolute numbers can be verified, and I have no idea how anyone might justify something like the 12 cent per KWh claim in the article. IF you look at the Federal subsidies for solar power you will realize that they are delivered for a fraction of the life of the facility. So they seem like two and a fraction cents per KWh only if you ignore the larger part of the facility’s life during which no subsidy is provided.
Similarly, the Ohio subsidy hasn’t been reported for 2016. In 2015 the subsidy might have been close to 12 cents per KWh, but again, only if you ignore the fact that this subsidy is concentrated in the first year and is an incentive to build new photovoltaics rather than a payment per KWh for the life of the project. When the Ohio Republicans froze the renewables standard starting in 2015 the market for solar credits crashed, and is not even reported at the present time.
Both wind and solar costs have fallen below that of new fossil resources. Rooftop solar is still expensive compared to wholesale coal or natural gas generation, but utility scale solar is cheaper. Even in Ohio where the sun is only 60% as bright as it is in New Mexico and Arizona. New nuclear power is so insanely expensive, upwards of 18 cents per KWh, that the only two new nuclear plants under construction in the U.S. were deeply dependent on subsidies. Now that Westinghouse Nuclear has collapsed these plants are likely to fail. The Westinghouse collapse may affect the Ohio plants, but it’s not clear.
Over the last eight years Ohio utilities have spent close to $1.2 billion on efficiency. The numbers for 2016 were released this week but I won’t get to them for another week or so. The PUCO has not added up the capacity savings produced by this spending since 2014, but in 2014 it was 1350 MW’s. By contrast, Davis Besse is nominally 890 MW’s, and Perry is 1230 MW’s. The efficiency was not directed specifically at saving capacity, but rather had a mixed purpose of energy savings, capacity savings and distribution of benefits among customers classes. Current spending is obviously going to take a while to displace both plants since it has already displaced one of them, but it has also displaced new growth, rebound from the recession, and possibly more, it doesn’t have a net impact that could be directed to the nuclear plants alone. But $265 million per year, directed at capacity savings, could easily displace both plants in addition to the current savings. It would take about five or six years to do so if the money were well spent and properly regulated, which means giving FirstEnergy a share of the savings after the savings have been verified by an independent evaluator – the same process which exists today for their much smaller efficiency budget. They spent about $27 million of the $140 million in statewide efficiency spending in 2015.
Perry and Davis Besse, and the FirstEnergy Beaver Valley plants near Pittsburgh are not new nuclear plants. They are plants nearing the end of their safe operating life, with a range of concerns which ought to justify closing Davis Besse first, Perry second, and the Beaver Valley plants afterwards, unless current information changes.
Once rates are set, a utility is free to allocate them as it sees fit. Under Ohio law, FirstEnergy is a distribution company which is free to buy from any provider and most of the power delivered by FirstEnergy does not come from FirstEnergy. Ohio customers pay fair rates, and efficiency, wind and solar operate in this context. Wind and solar have subsidies which are going to be phased out soon, and are a tiny fraction of the $265 million FirstEnergy wants each year, or the $200 million the PUCO tried to give it, which other customer groups have held up.
I don’t expect general news publications to be willing to carry the whole story about Ohio’s energy picture. This exchange is halfway between the story and what we ought to have somewhere – a true dialogue between people who understand the facts.
$1 billion in efficiency spending has created over $10 billion in energy savings. Close to $5 billion of that has already been realized, and the other half will be delivered by hardware already installed in homes and businesses and factories but not already finished its service life. The Renewables spending in Ohio cost about $275 million over eight years. That caused over $2.5 billion in investment in new wind turbines, new solar facilities, and new factories to build parts for them. Ohio is one of the strongest manufacturing states in the U.S. and would have a large role in renewables manufacturing even if the Ohio Republicans continue to vote against the public interest. But we all ought to know what the public interest is. This proposal, this letter, and the idea of propping up the aging nuclear fleet is not in the public interest.
I’m a life-long environmentalist who cares intensely about climate and carbon. I have long recognized that we will have to replace the nuclear fleet. It’s cheaper to do so than to keep it operating, and all we need to do to cut carbon as fast as possible is recognize that this adds about 20% to the electric sector challenge which carbon presents anyways.
The electricity sector is going to have huge opportunities as we develop more cheap renewables and find ways to use them to displace vehicle fuel , building space and water heating, and certain industrial processes. The sooner we get this straight the faster we will make our share of the huge profits which someone is going to make in the next several decades.
Ok… So Ohio is pleading with a REAL entrepreneur to intervene in their own little energy crisis.
Ironic, no?