Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

[Slimprofits]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...wer-plant.html

By Bradley Olson & Mark Chediak - Aug 27, 2013 4:15 PM ET

Entergy Corp. (ETR) will permanently shut its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2014 after battling for years with state officials to keep the 41-year-old reactor in service.

The decision to shut Vermont’s only operating reactor was based on natural gas prices, the high cost of running the single-unit plant and “artificially low” power prices in the region, New Orleans-based Entergy said in a statement today. Entergy won renewal of the plant’s license in 2011, allowing it to operate until 2032, and filed suit to prevent the state from closing the reactor earlier.

“The plant was no longer financially viable,” Entergy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Leo Denault said in a phone interview. “We did everything we could to try and keep this plant open from a financial standpoint. That’s why we fought the battles we fought legally.”

Vermont Yankee is the fifth U.S. nuclear reactor this year to announce plans to permanently close, the highest-ever annual total, as power prices have slumped amid booming gas production. Reactors also face higher maintenance costs from stricter regulations followingJapan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Nuclear units in New Jersey, California,Wisconsin and Florida are being shut, reducing the U.S. total to 99 from 104.

More retirements of single-unit reactors may be coming for Entergy and the industry, Julien Dumoulin-Smith and Andrew Gay, analysts for UBS AG, wrote in a research note today. Vermont Yankee’s cost of producing power was probably about $50 a megawatt-hour, they wrote. Spot prices for on-peak power averaged $35.27 a megawatt-hour during the past month in New England.

Other Candidates?

Exelon Corp.’s Clinton facility in Illinois and Entergy’s Fitzpatrick plant in New York are among nuclear generators at the greatest risk of shutting down, according to a July research note by Tudor Pickering Holt & Co.

Entergy also owns the Indian Point nuclear power plant, a two-unit facility north of New York City that some state officials want to close.

“Indian Point is a large, two-unit station in a more favorable market,” Mike Burns, an Entergy spokesman, said in an e-mail today. “We are committed to its continued and safe operation.”

Some Northeast power markets aren’t paying enough for power from nuclear plants, Denault said.

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...wer-plant.html


Entergy Corp. (ETR) will permanently shut its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2014 after battling for years with state officials to keep the 41-year-old reactor in service.....
...
Some Northeast power markets aren’t paying enough for power from nuclear plants, Denault said.

so - whats their plan to REPLACE the output - up the revs @ seabrook?

or "...boston gas heats, the only way to beat, the montreal expresssssss..."

hows that new LNG term'l proposal goin???

its getting kind of ridiculous, isnt it? - the rush to shutdown The Only Real Alternative - esp when some are now claiming that solar is now 'cheaper' ??

'cheaper' than what?
its as if theres no energy input req'd to produce PV (never mind the billions in those subsidies, or the smog belching raw mat'l production) and then, just how many more trillions in CAPEX to produce 'utility scale' qty of KWH (never mind MEGA WH) -
and then - to get that kind of scale - what - subsidize the utilities construction costs? - (and FIre profits)
all so they can then CHARGE US for the output? -

that they(utilities) get fer 'free' from the sun???

i tell ya, The Agenda's bullhorn is getting to the point of hysterical (and i'm not talking funny)

(and no, mr slim, i'm not barkin at you..)

[GRG55]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

so - whats their plan to REPLACE the output - up the revs @ seabrook?

or "...boston gas heats, the only way to beat, the montreal expresssssss..."

hows that new LNG term'l proposal goin???

its getting kind of ridiculous, isnt it? - the rush to shutdown The Only Real Alternative - esp when some are now claiming that solar is now 'cheaper' ??

'cheaper' than what?
its as if theres no energy input req'd to produce PV (never mind the billions in those subsidies, or the smog belching raw mat'l production) and then, just how many more trillions in CAPEX to produce 'utility scale' qty of KWH (never mind MEGA WH) -
and then - to get that kind of scale - what - subsidize the utilities construction costs? - (and FIre profits)
all so they can then CHARGE US for the output? -

that they(utilities) get fer 'free' from the sun???

i tell ya, The Agenda's bullhorn is getting to the point of hysterical (and i'm not talking funny)

(and no, mr slim, i'm not barkin at you..)

It will be replaced by natural gas turbine driven generators.

Google 'Marcellus Shale' and read all about it...

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

It will be replaced by natural gas turbine driven generators.

Google 'Marcellus Shale' and read all about it...

yeah, yeah, yeah.... theres a wiseguy in every post....

;0)

ok - is that 'pre-cheap-peak' frackgas (before the frakaphobia crowd shuts em down) ?

or 'post-cheap-peak' - ala berman&co - (and/or after the anti-everything brigade succeeds in taking out the rest of nukes) ?

if'n eye didnt know knew better (not that i do) it might even look like that bar chart is lookin a bit toppy already, eh grg?

and it might be kind of interesting to see the rig counts/capex in that area overlayed on that chart too...

[GRG55]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

yeah, yeah, yeah.... theres a wiseguy in every post....

;0)




ok - is that 'pre-cheap-peak' frackgas (before the frakaphobia crowd shuts em down) ?

or 'post-cheap-peak' - ala berman&co - (and/or after the anti-everything brigade succeeds in taking out the rest of nukes) ?

if'n eye didnt know knew better (not that i do) it might even look like that bar chart is lookin a bit toppy already, eh grg?

and it might be kind of interesting to see the rig counts/capex in that area overlayed on that chart too...

For natural gas the Marcellus is the shale play to watch to see how it is going to really play out. I have seen some projections that the Marcellus may top out at 11-12 Bcf per day. That is a lot of gas. Will they do it? How sustainable is it? What happens if the industry get even close to that projection? Profound implications.

Edit added: I should clarify that the Marcellus is turning out to be one of the "better" shale gas plays in terms of comparative productivity and capex demands. One caution is to avoid a premature declaration that the play has peaked. Successive waves of investment, with troughs in between during the low part of the price cycles might result in progressively higher production rates with each capex splurge. At this time, very very difficult to see how this is all going to play out. I am coming to the view that we cannot completely discount that sort of outcome.

[Bundi]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

Wholesale electricity (available to utilities) prices at Vermont load zone, for the first 7 months of the calendar years from 2003 to 2013. In $s per megawatt hour. Other NE load zones are typically at similar cost levels.
2003 = $53.08
2004 = $56.20
2005 = $64.47
2006 = $63.66
2007 = $69.66
2008 = $92.69
2009 = $42.99
2010 = $49.48
2011 = $51.41
2012 = $32.30
2013 = $61.20 (notably influenced by very high early 2013 wholesale pricing)

I am not certain the $50 per megawatt hour cost of Vermont Yankee electricity is exactly apples to apples to the ISO-NE VT load zone numbers but I suspect it is pretty close.

Data here.
http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/hstdat...hly/index.html

[Bundi]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

According to the EIA…

Dry gas production for May 2013 was 2,051 billion cubic feet (Bcf) or 66.2 Bcf/day, a slight increase from last May's 2,034 Bcf, or 65.6 Bcf/day. Year-to-date dry production for 2013 is now on track to exceed 2012's record high for a calendar year.

Total consumption of natural gas for May 2013 was 1,740 Bcf, the second highest consumption on record for the month, a slight decrease from last May's record-setting 1,871 Bcf.

Owing to sustained higher spot prices of natural gas, deliveries to the electric power sector for May dropped to 615 Bcf from last May's record high of 817 Bcf, a year-on-year decrease of nearly 25 percent.

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/?src=Natural-f2

If the Marcellus were to double in production, over time anyway, that is an additional ~6 billion cubic feet per day or ~9.0% of the current run rate. Seems to be a long list of other factors though that would influence price.

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

For natural gas the Marcellus is the shale play to watch to see how it is going to really play out. I have seen some projections that the Marcellus may top out at 11-12 Bcf per day. That is a lot of gas. Will they do it? How sustainable is it? What happens if the industry get even close to that projection? Profound implications.

Edit added: I should clarify that the Marcellus is turning out to be one of the "better" shale gas plays in terms of comparative productivity and capex demands. One caution is to avoid a premature declaration that the play has peaked. Successive waves of investment, with troughs in between during the low part of the price cycles might result in progressively higher production rates with each capex splurge. At this time, very very difficult to see how this is all going to play out. I am coming to the view that we cannot completely discount that sort of outcome.

cant argue with that, grg - altho methinks theres a LOT riding on the next 2 election cycles - if the present political 'triangulation' prevails going forward - i think both conventional as well as newly potentialized hydrocarbon resources (and production) will be sacrificed in the name of the agenda.

that is, unless and of course, more rational discourse can make some headway - since the hypocrisy over this issue has indeed become hysterical

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

According to the EIA…

Dry gas production for May 2013 was 2,051 billion cubic feet (Bcf) or 66.2 Bcf/day, a slight increase from last May's 2,034 Bcf, or 65.6 Bcf/day. Year-to-date dry production for 2013 is now on track to exceed 2012's record high for a calendar year.

Total consumption of natural gas for May 2013 was 1,740 Bcf, the second highest consumption on record for the month, a slight decrease from last May's record-setting 1,871 Bcf.

Owing to sustained higher spot prices of natural gas, deliveries to the electric power sector for May dropped to 615 Bcf from last May's record high of 817 Bcf, a year-on-year decrease of nearly 25 percent.

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/?src=Natural-f2

it will be very interesting to see if that trend from may continued, seeing as that was before the summer (a/c) season really got going.

did elec gen switch back to coal?
and would that explain the all of a sudden uptick in outfits like BTU ? - nice bounce there the past month or so, but of course i'm on the sidelines, awaiting the prophesied blowout/downstroke ahead (as well as certain other events to conclude b4 i'll have the ball$ to throw in on the game ;)

[dcarrigg]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

For natural gas the Marcellus is the shale play to watch to see how it is going to really play out. I have seen some projections that the Marcellus may top out at 11-12 Bcf per day. That is a lot of gas. Will they do it? How sustainable is it? What happens if the industry get even close to that projection? Profound implications.

Edit added: I should clarify that the Marcellus is turning out to be one of the "better" shale gas plays in terms of comparative productivity and capex demands. One caution is to avoid a premature declaration that the play has peaked. Successive waves of investment, with troughs in between during the low part of the price cycles might result in progressively higher production rates with each capex splurge. At this time, very very difficult to see how this is all going to play out. I am coming to the view that we cannot completely discount that sort of outcome.

New England is sort of a black hole for natural gas pipelines. From what I hear, they're already running at capacity with few plans for additional pipelines. Natural Gas is already 42.4% of New England generating capacity, with nuclear at 30.9 and everything else playing a distant second fiddle. But there are a couple of thousand megawatts of wind capacity that will be flipped on in the next 5-10 years. Lots of old natural gas plants and nuke plants are hitting their age limits. And Canada's looking to sell a few thousand megawatts of hydro down to New England if they can get the transmission lines built out of Quebec and/or New Brunswick. One 620MW nuclear plant is going offline is not the end of the world. More natural gas pipelines probably wouldn't hurt either. Iso new england put out a 2030 plan detailing what they thought would go down.

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

New England is sort of a black hole for natural gas pipelines. From what I hear, they're already running at capacity with few plans for additional pipelines. Natural Gas is already 42.4% of New England generating capacity,

roger that, dc - that should be good for my (small) chunk of ETP
which i'm a'hoping (an announcment of the bernanks swapout) will give me another chance to pickup another chunk (before the next round of printing commences)

and thanks for YOUR insight into new england's sitch - its near impossible to keep up on everything thats going on (in the places i have to pay attention to) these daze...

[Bundi]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

New England is sort of a black hole for natural gas pipelines. From what I hear, they're already running at capacity with few plans for additional pipelines. Natural Gas is already 42.4% of New England generating capacity, with nuclear at 30.9 and everything else playing a distant second fiddle. But there are a couple of thousand megawatts of wind capacity that will be flipped on in the next 5-10 years. Lots of old natural gas plants and nuke plants are hitting their age limits. And Canada's looking to sell a few thousand megawatts of hydro down to New England if they can get the transmission lines built out of Quebec and/or New Brunswick. One 620MW nuclear plant is going offline is not the end of the world. More natural gas pipelines probably wouldn't hurt either. Iso new england put out a 2030 plan detailing what they thought would go down.

As it was explained to me regarding natural gas pipelines into New England…

There are three natural gas lines that supply the region. They are Canadian Maritime, Tennessee, and Algonquin. I had a conversation with someone in the energy industry and was told that in 2004 Algonquin was volume constrained only 25 days. Tennessee was volume constrained only 42 days in that year. Canadian Maritime, 0 days in that year. By 2012, he claimed both Algonquin and Tennessee were volume constrained 289 days in the year, with Maritime somewhere in that ball park as well. Obviously this is a big shift and we all know the natural gas pricing is instrumental in driving usage.

You can see the winter 13 effect on Algonquin pricing here.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=170

EIA data confirm this general trend of pipeline capacity utilization.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8230

Another consideration to contemplate, for those that follow these things, apparently liquid natural gas deliveries into New England are also a very important driver of electricity prices and when volumes are constrained relative to demand, can be the cause of spikes in electricity prices. LNG deliveries are by LNG tankers into a handful of Northeastern ports. EIA data indicate that about a quarter of New England natural gas needs are met by liquid natural gas, so it matters.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4610

Basically, LNG arbitrage matters.

Relative world natural gas prices. Companies in the United States compete for LNG supplies in a global marketplace. Since 2009, growing domestic gas production has contributed to average wellhead and wholesale natural gas prices typically ranging between $3 and $5 per million Btu (MMBtu). Natural gas prices in Europe and Asia have ranged much higher, reaching $10-$16/MMBtu. As a result, other LNG markets are typically served first, and the United States has become more of a residuals market for LNG supplies not served under long-term contracts. Most U.S. LNG terminals have seen very low utilization levels in recent years.

Here is a list of natural gas pipeline projects, according the EIA.

www.eia.gov/naturalgas/pipelines/EIA-NaturalGasPipelineProjects.xls

In 2012, over half of ongoing U.S. nat. gas pipeline projects were in the Northeast.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10511

One that seems specific to New England is the Algonquin Incremental Market Expansion (AIM). It is listed in the EIA spreadsheet as well but is only one of several projects nationally. What is interesting about AIM is that it looks to be designed to draw off the Marcellus supply (see caption on link).

http://www.spectraenergy.com/Operati...t-AIM-Project/

PROJECT NEED
The Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project will provide the Northeast with a unique opportunity to secure a cost effective, domestically produced source of energy to support its current demand, as well as its future growth, for clean burning natural gas.
The Project — an infrastructure investment that expands the pipeline capacity of our existing Algonquin Gas Transmission system — will allow abundant regional natural gas supplies from the Appalachian basin to flow reliably into the Northeast, helping to meet the increasing demand from home heating and electric generation while lowering energy costs.

Pipelines are being added, perhaps export infrastructure and commitments as well. We may need more production.

[lektrode]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

...
Pipelines are being added, perhaps export infrastructure and commitments as well. We may need more production.

and/or more nukes...
the Ultimate Solution (for all sorts of problems, not the least of which is JOB CREATION, global-climate-warming-change and our little problem over there in the mideast - and i'll just ignore our biggest problem )

[GRG55]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

Irving Oil’s and Repsol’s expensive lesson about LNG

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Aug. 31 2013, 5:00 AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Aug. 30 2013, 7:58 PM EDT

Spain’s Repsol SA and its junior partner Irving Oil Ltd. found themselves caught on the wrong side of the rapid transformation in the North American energy market from import-dependent to export-oriented.

Located at the tip of Saint John’s Mispec Point in the Bay of Fundy, Canaport LNG began importing liquefied natural gas in 2009 just as the continent’s shale gas production was exploding and plans for several LNG import facilities across North America were being shelved.

A visit to the area this week found the plant’s jetty empty; the only sign of activity around the wharf and storage tanks was the flare stack, lit up as a warning beacon against the cloudy sky.

Located next to the site for the crude export terminal planned by TransCanada Corp. and Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport LNG serves as a stark reminder that megaproject economics can quickly sour in the face of dramatic shifts in the oil and gas markets.

The facility now operates at a small fraction of its name-plated 1.2-billion-cubic-feet-a-day capacity, with only the occasional ship docking at the site, although there are a few more in winter when the plant can send gas by pipeline to New England.

But future U.S. sales are threatened as pipelines companies rush to connect the northeast region with the prolific and low-cost Marcellus shale gas field that is producing in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio.

In February, Repsol took a $1.3-billion writedown on its 75-per-cent interest in the LNG facility, after the company failed to include it in a sale of other LNG assets in Trinidad and Peru to Royal Dutch Shell PLC for $4.4-billion.

Canaport LNG has since applied to the National Energy Board for permissions to re-export gas that it imports and stores in tanks, in order to take advantage of spot-market spikes.

Over the longer term, the company may follow the lead of some U.S.-based import terminals and invest in liquefaction capacity to become a pure exporting operating. But it needs a gas supply, and New Brunswick’s fledgling shale gas industry has yet to prove up sufficient reserves to underpin such an operation.

[Bundi]

Re: Entergy to Close Vermont’s Only Nuclear Power Plant

New England is sort of a black hole for natural gas pipelines. From what I hear, they're already running at capacity with few plans for additional pipelines. Natural Gas is already 42.4% of New England generating capacity, with nuclear at 30.9 and everything else playing a distant second fiddle. But there are a couple of thousand megawatts of wind capacity that will be flipped on in the next 5-10 years. Lots of old natural gas plants and nuke plants are hitting their age limits. And Canada's looking to sell a few thousand megawatts of hydro down to New England if they can get the transmission lines built out of Quebec and/or New Brunswick. One 620MW nuclear plant is going offline is not the end of the world. More natural gas pipelines probably wouldn't hurt either. Iso new england put out a 2030 plan detailing what they thought would go down.

Early signs of the seasonal natural gas impact on NE ISO electricity prices?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...ts-demand.html

Boston Power Prices Rise as Cold Weather Boosts Heating Demand
By Harry R. Weber - Dec 10, 2013

Spot wholesale electricity in Boston more than doubled as cold weather pushed demand above forecasts while higher natural gas prices boosted generating costs.

Power use on the ISO New England Inc. network averaged 17,464 megawatts at 3:25 p.m., versus the day-ahead forecast of 17,370 megawatts, according to the grid’s website.

The high temperature today in Boston was projected to reach 38 degrees Fahrenheit (3 Celsius), 5 below normal, according to AccuWeather Inc. in State College, Pennsylvania.

Spot prices in Boston advanced $86.02 to average $153.45 a megawatt-hour for the hour ended at 3 p.m. from the same time yesterday, grid data compiled by Bloomberg show. New York City prices rose 2.3 percent to average $41.29.

“Beyond cold weather, the reason for strength in New England is that we have very high gas pricing this week,” Jesse Fitzmaurice, a Boston-based analyst at Genscape Inc., said in an electronic message. “These are the highest spot gas prices in the country.”

Natural gas futures rose to the highest price in more than six months today as cold weather boosted fuel use.

New York City on-peak power traded at a discount of $100.10 to Boston, compared with a $55.64 discount yesterday and a three-month average discount of 66 cents.

Snow rolling through some areas caused blackouts. Winter storm warnings and advisories stretched from eastern Tennessee to southeastern Massachusetts, according to the National Weather Service.

Mid-Atlantic Prices
Spot prices at PJM Interconnection LLC’s benchmark Western hub, which includes Washington, declined 13 cents to average $36.94 a megawatt-hour at 3 p.m. from the same time yesterday. Eastern hub prices dropped 35 cents to average $39.26 a megawatt-hour.

PJM West on-peak power traded $2.46 below the eastern hub, compared with a $3.18 discount yesterday and a three-month average discount of $4.78.

Spot prices at the Texas North hub, which includes Dallas, fell 15 percent to average $31.70 a megawatt-hour for the hour ended at 2 p.m. local time after gains earlier in the day. Houston hub power also slid 15 percent to average $31.70, the grid data show.

To contact the reporter on this story: Harry R. Weber in Houston at hweber14@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Stets at dstets@bloomberg.net