The Energy Collective

The world's best thinkers on energy and climate

  • Home
  • Post Here
  • Columns
    • Electricity Markets & Policy Group
    • Full Spectrum
    • Energy and Policy Developments
    • Game Changers
    • Energy for Human Development
    • Seeking Consensus
    • Green Growth
    • New Energy Voices
  • Fuels
    • Oil
    • Wind
    • Nuclear Power
    • Coal
    • Natural Gas
    • Solar Power
    • Renewables
    • Biofuels
    • Geothermal Energy
    • Wave & Tidal
    • Hydro Power
  • Environment
    • Carbon and De-carbonization
    • International Climate Conferences
    • Sustainability
    • Climate
    • Public Health
    • Water
    • Recycling
  • Grid
    • Smart Grid
    • Electricity
  • Tech
    • Cleantech
    • Green Building
    • Storage
    • Rare Earth Minerals
  • Business and Economy
    • Cap-and-Trade
    • Agriculture
    • Efficiency
    • Green Business
    • Utilities
    • Finance
    • Green Jobs
    • Subsidies
    • Risk Management
  • Politics
    • Environmental Policy
    • Energy Security
    • Communications and Messaging
    • China
  • Transport
  • Help
    • FAQ
  • Account
    • Login
    • Register

The EPA’s coal mandate: An opportunity for nuclear, a giveaway for natural gas

March 28, 2012 by Steve Skutnik

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today the EPA issued its first-ever regulation on carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, limiting emissions to 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Given the fact that the average coal plant vastly exceeds this limit (weighing in around 1,768 lbs CO2 per megawatt-hour), the implications of the move seem rather obvious – essentially banning new coal plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology (and thus greatly increasing the cost of new coal plants), thereby making good on President (then-candidate) Obama’s promise to “bankrupt” anyone who still desired to build new power plants fueled by coal.

Naturally, the move is producing howls of protest from the predictable corners – despite the fact that the move only applies to new construction (with an exception for those already permitted and begin construction within one year of the rule change taking effect. And of course, despite the fact that there exists a reliable, baseload alternative for producing energy, one which incidentally has the lowest marginal generating costs and has proven more than capable of delivering electricity safely and reliably. More to the point, given that the chief opposition to the rule is from Republicans, who ostensibly support nuclear energy, why the doom and gloom about an economic catastrophe? If anything, the move should be an opportunity to hammering the case for why nuclear is needed now more than ever. Again though – one wonders if nuclear’s support is wide but shallow compared to support for conventional fossil sources among these groups.

Overall however, the EPA mandate has a marginal but positive impact on new nuclear, namely by formalizing the winnowing down of new baseload capacity to a race between nuclear and natural gas, the latter of which has of course been buoyed by low prices from the recent boom in shale gas production.

Meanwhile, if the EPA’s mandate is a glimmer of opportunity for the nuclear industry, it’s an outright giveaway for natural gas. The average natural gas plant emits roughly half the CO2 of a standard coal plant (about 850 pounds per MWh), and meanwhile the EPA estimates that 95% of current natural gas power capacity would pass muster under the new rules. Thus, the choice of a convenient round number of 1000 pounds per MWh seems all the less arbitrary – in fact it seems almost entirely designed to benefit natural gas at the expense of coal. (I was pleased to see that I am not the only one who noticed this distinction – the fine folks at NEI Nuclear Notes have also taken notice .)

There are perhaps any number of reasons to complain about the EPA rule, even if one does believe (as do I) that tackling carbon emissions is of the utmost importance. For one, a more economically efficient proposal would of course be a carbon tax. Logically, if the rule is designed to minimize the social ill caused by carbon emissions, then natural gas plants (as a function of capacity) all produce half the harm of coal plants, while nuclear produces none. More economically efficient policies – like a carbon tax – would more readily reflect this than the current approach, which almost seems designed to simply promote natural gas.

Indeed, MIT’s “Future of Nuclear Power” report found that even a modest carbon tax of $25/tCO2 would raise the price of new coal to 8.3 cents per kWh, comparable to that of new nuclear (8.4 cents/kWh), while that of natural gas would rise to 7.4 cents per kWh – still cheaper, although hardly the clear favorite, especially given scenarios under which the capital costs of nuclear were controlled to the level of other fossil sources (at which point, new nuclear drops to 6.6 cents per kWh – well below coal and slightly cheaper than natural gas.)

One can only guess then as to why EPA choose to ignore the advice of both numerous environmentalists and scores of economists, all of whom have advocated either a carbon tax (or its lesser cousin, a cap-and-trade carbon credit market) as an economically efficient solution in favor of a suspiciously non-arbitrary cap.

Related posts:

The Energy Collective Analyzes EPA’s Power Plant Carbon Regulations [VIDEO] The Beginning of the End for Coal? How a Capacity Market Works Energy Demand Reductions Help Slash US CO2 Emissions: A Closer Analysis

Steve Skutnik

Filed Under: Carbon and De-carbonization, Coal, Nuclear Power Tagged With: co2 emissions, epa, power plants

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Energy Collective Columns

Full Spectrum: Energy Analysis and Commentary with Jesse JenkinsEnergy and Policy Developments with John Miller
Game Changers column badgeEnergy for Human Development Column
Seeking Consensus with Schalk CloeteGreen Growth with Silvio Marcacci
New Energy VoicesMore coming soon...

Latest comments

  • Jarmo on New Solar Capacity Exceeded All Other Fuel Sources Combined in 2017, Study Finds https://www.thirdway.org/memo/nuclear-closures-undo-years-worth-of-climate-progress This article pu (April 22, 2018 at 5:57 AM)
  • Geoff Thomas on New Study Explores the Market Value of Offshore Wind It is wise that the Authors noted their dependance on earlier figures because of three major items, (April 22, 2018 at 4:51 AM)
  • Roger Arnold on $100 Oil Is Back On The Table "The cost of had"? I recommend proof reading what you've written before hitting 'post'. Relying on s (April 21, 2018 at 8:15 PM)
  • BobMeinetz on Climate Change Optimism: Five Years of Change Correction, Bob - quantities of both insolation and human consumption should be per year, not per da (April 21, 2018 at 4:09 PM)

Advisory Panel

About the panel

Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »


Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »


Elias Hinckley is a strategic advisor on energy finance and energy policy to investors, energy companies and governments More »


Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »


Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »


Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »


Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »


Featured Contributors

Rod Adams

Scott Edward Anderson

Charles Barton

Barry Brook

Steven Cohen

Dick DeBlasio

Senator Pete Domenici

Simon Donner

Big Gav

Michael Giberson

Kirsty Gogan

James Greenberger

Lou Grinzo

Jesse Grossman

Tyler Hamilton

Christine Hertzog

David Hone

Gary Hunt

Jesse Jenkins

Sonita Lontoh

Rebecca Lutzy

Jesse Parent

Jim Pierobon

Vicky Portwain

Willem Post

Tom Raftery

Joseph Romm

Robert Stavins

Robert Stowe

Geoffrey Styles

Alex Trembath

Gernot Wagner

Dan Yurman

 

 

 

Follow Us

32-linkedin 32-facebook 32-twitter 32-rss

Content for personal use only. Distribution prohibited. Republication in part or in whole is strictly prohibited. © All rights reserved Energy Central © 2018

Recent Comments

  • Jarmo on New Solar Capacity Exceeded All Other Fuel Sources Combined in 2017, Study Finds
  • Geoff Thomas on New Study Explores the Market Value of Offshore Wind
  • Roger Arnold on $100 Oil Is Back On The Table

Recent Posts

  • The U.S. is an Active Participant in Petroleum Markets as Both an Importer and Exporter
  • What ALA’s Most Recent State of the Air Report Reveals About Oil and Gas Air Pollution in the Western U.S.
  • UK Will Legislate Net-Zero Carbon Emissions Target, Says Minister

Useful Pages

  • Terms of Use
  • Comments Policy
  • Privacy & Cookies
  • Help
  • About and Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 Energy Central. All Rights Reserved
This site uses cookies, for a number of reasons. By continuing to use this website you accept the use of cookies. Find out more.