nuclear undone
  • blog
  • about
  • contact

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Does the EPA’s Clean Power Plan Ignore Nuclear?

11/5/2014

8 Comments

 
Picture
By Nicholas Thompson

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule for regulating carbon emissions, or to be more precise, average carbon emissions per power produced. There is a fundamental difference between these two things, which will have a large impact on whether or not emissions actually decrease, and by how much.

What the Clean Power Plan proposes is setting emissions targets for each state based on a formula that calculates pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour of energy produced. To use an analogy, imagine you ran a delivery service and had a fleet of delivery vehicles; this regulation would be looking not at the total emissions of those vehicles, but the average miles per gallon across the fleet. Retiring old vehicles (coal) that don’t get as good mileage and replacing them with better ones (natural gas) would be one way to reduce the fleet’s average miles per gallon. To extend the analogy though, the best way to reduce the miles per gallon of the fleet would be to switch to electric vehicles (nuclear and renewables), since they consume no fuel. This is where the problem begins with the Clean Power Plan.

In order to calculate the state’s target goal for emissions, all of the emissions from all sources are added up, and then divided by the sum of all the power produced by coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, but only 5.8% of the power produced by nuclear. This 5.8% number seems out of place; all other sources (except hydro) are fully accounted for, so why wasn’t nuclear?

The answer is not clear, but what is clear is that a number of environmental groups, most notably the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) played a large hand in helping shape the new rule, according The New York Times (reports here and here). When an attorney for the NRDC was asked about this, he responded by saying,  
“I observe that most of those nuclear plants were built a long time ago…Including them all would imply that states need to make sure all of them continue to operate. Compliance in states that had to close them down would be more difficult." Source
Essentially what he’s saying is that nuclear plants shouldn’t be included in the regulation, because if they are, we can’t hit emissions targets without them. This is exactly the point that advocates for nuclear energy have been making; when nuclear plants close, emissions rise. However, since only 5.8% of nuclear is accounted for in the proposed regulation, closing of a nuclear plant and replacing it with natural gas can actually lead to a lower calculated emission per power produced, especially in states that are large consumers of coal. 

Going back to the example with the fleet of cars, this would be like excluding 94% of the miles electric cars drove from your calculation of the fleet’s miles per gallon. In this case, getting rid of an electric car and buying a moderately fuel efficient car could yield a lower calculated miles per gallon of the fleet, even though overall emissions rose. In fact, if you go through the math, as PhD students Justin Knowles and Remy Devoe of UTK have done, there are a number of states which would have a lower calculated emissions/power produced if all the nuclear plants were closed and replaced with natural gas (even though this would yield much more emissions).  

Luckily, there is still time to look at all the documentation and submit a public comment on this proposed rule, the link for which is at the bottom of this document. How do you think the proposed regulation should be changed? 

Documents for the Clean Power Plan and how to submit a public comment to the EPA here.
8 Comments
ChrisB
11/5/2014 01:40:24 am

I've looked at the Clean Power Plan a few times in the past couple months. As you say, the plan removes all hydro & 94.2% of the nuclear from the emissions ratio; but also gives an *Efficiency Credit* for "any incremental end use energy efficiency improvements" to further mitigate the CO2 ratio. This could be a nod to Lovins' Negawatt concept or be some kind of Carbon Credit Swap - something I need to examine further. Personally, I think the EPA deserves three points in any response to their proposed CPP.

1) Include 100% of CO2 emissions AND 100% of electrical generation sources in the ratio. This plan also ignores small plants that produce <25GW. Perhaps this should be lowered to 10GW? And get rid of the efficiency credit!

2) Many states are allowed emission ratios over 1000lbs/MWh. This should be set much lower so that emissions by 2050 avg 200lbs/MWh. Then have a goal of 60lbs by the year 2100!

3) Require both states and utilities to publish their emissions ratio regularly (monthly and daily - respectively). An informed public may be the best tool to fight climate change.

A fourth suggestion might be to include other Green House Gasses (CFCs, CH4, SOX, NOX) along with CO2.

Reply
ChrisB
11/5/2014 01:45:32 am

oops... suggestion 1 should read "...small plants that produce less than 25 GW".

Reply
Engineer-Poet link
11/11/2014 10:32:21 am

25 GW (gigawatts) is an enormous plant. 25 MW (megawatts) is a small plant, in grid terms. 5 kW (kilowatts) is a good-sized home generator. 25 mW (milliwatts) is a pocket electronic device. Watch your metric prefixes.

ChrisB
11/14/2014 02:44:59 am

E-P; you're quite right. I'm embarrassed to have made such a mistake, I should have typed "MW". Thank you for calling my attention to it.

I keep returning to a footnote of the EPA's "Goal Computation Technical Support Document" pertaining to the Clean Power Plan. I'll paste that footnote from page 27 -

“2012 Fossil, RE, Nuclear ᴬᴿ” includes all generation subject to the state goals for which data was reported in 2012. That data includes generation from covered fossil fuel-fired units (e.g., >25 MW), all RE generation except hydropower, and approximately 5.8% of nuclear generation (the “at-risk” component of nuclear generation). The 2012 CO2 rates shown here have not been adjusted for any incremental end-use energy efficiency improvements that states may make as part of their plans to reach these state goals.

Tim Wyant
11/5/2014 12:06:16 pm

The CPP doesn't ignore nuclear, it stacks the deck against it. The rules must be amended or the entire thing killed off. We don't send out servicemen overseas without their best and most effective weapons of war. Why should we fight climate change without using our best weapons?

Reply
Alan Medsker
11/10/2014 06:05:31 am

Good summary of the issue, however I think you mean to say HIGHER miles per gallon in your analogy, when referring to the "better" solution.

Reply
Nicholas Thompson
11/11/2014 02:11:41 am

Great catch, yes, that is what I meant.

Reply
Moni link
12/27/2020 04:26:52 am

Nice postt

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    American Nuclear Society
    Climate Change
    Diversity In Stem
    Energy
    Environmentalists
    Fuel Cycle
    I'm A Nuke
    International
    IYNC
    Navy
    Nonproliferation
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Engineers
    Nuclear Technology
    Policy
    Radiation
    Reactors
    Science Education
    Sustainability
    UAE
    Women In Engineering

    RSS Feed


    Follow on Bloglovin
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from Idaho National Laboratory, Jim.Richmond, Idaho National Laboratory, IAEA Imagebank