Election 2016: Chris Christie Embraces Nuclear Energy Industry That Has Backed Him

[kristopher]

3. Obama's EPA took nuclear out of the Clean Power Plan

So you're a near-militant hydrogen proponent, a nuclear fan, and a Chris Christie fan? That sounds like a toxic mix to me...


Extended excerpt used with permission

EPA took nuclear out of the Clean Power Plan


Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. Yes, President Obama released the first real climate action policy in the U.S. ever. But that’s not all. The incredible thing—the one that will be most important in the years to come—is … they got it basically right.

Including on nuclear power. President Obama just made it the policy of the United States that nuclear power is not a viable climate solution. And not just that, but renewable energy can replace nuclear power just like it can replace fossil fuels.

This is a game-changer, both for reducing carbon emissions in the US, and for discrediting the deceptive Nuclear Matters bailout campaign. What is more, going into December’s global climate treaty negotiations in Paris, the U.S. government just declared that we are moving forward, and we are going to do it with renewables, not nuclear.

The upshot is that the EPA appears to have done a total 180 on nuclear in the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and their rationales reflect the concerns raised by the public in the streets of New York City, in tens of thousands of comments, letters, and petitions (THANK YOU!!), and by NIRS and other clean energy groups in conversations and a key meeting with EPA officials who, some might say unexpectedly but we’ll say with our real appreciation, listened and ultimately agreed with our position. After all, with all due modesty, it was a pretty reasoned and well thought-out approach to the climate issue.

Here is a quick synopsis of what the rule actually does with respect to nuclear power:

1. Not only are nuclear reactors under construction not counted on in setting emissions goals, but neither are existing nuclear plants. By the same token, relicensing nuclear reactors won’t count either.

2. Just as significantly, EPA recognized that there is no need to “preserve” nuclear reactors that are “at risk” of closure, because they can be replaced with renewables just as fossil fuels can.

3. EPA will only allow actual, new/increased nuclear generation to count toward complying with the emissions goals. That means, states can only count new reactors that actually operate before 2030 (the five in construction or any others) and power uprates of existing reactors toward meeting their emissions goals.

4. That means there is no incentive under the CPP to keep uneconomical reactors operating and no incentive to complete building new reactors. States can meet their goal with new nuclear (but not with existing nuclear), but they are given no justification for preferring nuclear over renewables. In fact, there are several statements in the rule that indicate just the opposite.

5. And only those new/additional amounts of nuclear can qualify to sell emissions offset credits in cap-and-trade programs. Existing reactors cannot qualify as emissions offsets for fossil fuel generation, because they do not actually reduce carbon emissions.

6. The CPP does not prevent states from creating subsidies for nuclear, but there is absolutely no incentive for them to do so.

The impacts of the EPA’s decision are already being felt far and wide. ...

http://safeenergy.org/2015/08/04/epa-took-nuclear-out-of-the-clean-power-plan/


Text from the EPA Clean Power Plan

...Like generation from new RE generating capacity, generation from new nuclear generating capacity can clearly replace fossil fuel-fired generation and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. However, there are also important differences between these types of low- or zero-CO2 generation. Investments in new nuclear capacity are very large capital-intensive investments that require substantial lead times. By comparison, investments in new RE generating capacity are individually smaller and require shorter lead times. Also, important recent trends evidenced in RE development, such as rapidly growing investment and rapidly decreasing costs, are not as clearly evidenced in nuclear generation. We view these factors as distinguishing the under-construction nuclear units from RE generating capacity, indicating that the new nuclear capacity is likely of higher cost and therefore less appropriate for inclusion in the BSER. Accordingly, as described in section V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing increased generation from under-construction nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER.

The EPA is likewise not finalizing the proposal to include a component representing preserved existing nuclear generation in the BSER. On further consideration, we believe it is inappropriate to base the BSER on elements that will not reduce CO2 emissions from affected EGUs below current levels. Existing nuclear generation helps make existing CO2 emissions lower than they would otherwise be, but will not further lower CO2 emissions below current levels. Accordingly, as described in section V.A.3., the EPA is not finalizing preservation of generation from existing nuclear capacity as a component of the BSER.

Pgs 344 and 345 of Aug 3. 2015 prepublication release of CPP.