Dear Valued Visitor,

We have noticed that you are using an ad blocker software.

Although advertisements on the web pages may degrade your experience, our business certainly depends on them and we can only keep providing you high-quality research based articles as long as we can display ads on our pages.

To view this article, you can disable your ad blocker and refresh this page or simply login.

We only allow registered users to use ad blockers. You can sign up for free by clicking here or you can login if you are already a member.

Duke Energy Corp (DUK), Exelon Corporation (EXC): Is Nuclear Energy’s Lightbulb Dimming?

Page 1 of 2

Fission power has its critics. Fukushima and the falling prices of renewable sources of power generation haven’t made it any easier to operate the large nuclear fleets at Exelon Corporation (NYSE:EXC) and Duke Energy Corp (NYSE:DUK). Can’t we just switch these atomic power plants off and let the wind keep the lights on? Or what about all of the natural gas beneath our feet?

If only it were that easy. Not only is dropping nuclear power a complicated issue, but it also challenges very recent data that show just how painful that endeavor could be. Advocates of a nuclear-free future should consider what would happen to the electricity bills of consumers in such a scenario. Meanwhile, the data may support the idea that exposing your portfolio to nuclear fuel won’t be as radioactive to your portfolio as once thought.

Credit: Duke Energy Corp (NYSE:DUK)

No love for SONGS
In January 2012 the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, or SONGS, in Southern California was shut down after a small (contained) radiation leak was discovered. Tubes carrying radioactive water were damaged, which lead to the release of small amounts of radioactive steam. While the leak posed no threat to the surrounding public, it sure didn’t help nuclear’s image.

Southern California Edison, the largest subsidiary of Edison International (NYSE:EIX), owns the facility and, now, its problems. Atomic energy critics argued that the facility should be closed permanently, asserting that renewable energy and natural gas in Southern California could easily replace the lost generation.

Wish granted. Just be careful what you wish for.

The abrupt departure of SONGS jolted the grid in more ways than one. First, the suddenness of the outage forced energy providers to scramble to fill the void — an ongoing struggle. Second, although nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to operate and provide a constant (and massive) stream of power.

The closure of SONGS is acting as an unfolding case study for energy strategists planning or modeling the future of the grid. Power prices from Northern and Southern California, which have historically tracked one another, have strayed thanks to the outage.

Source: EIA

The lost nuclear capacity at SONGS resulted in a price spread between north and south of 12% in April, which could worsen as electricity demand peaks this summer and natural gas prices continue their rise. More worrisome is the fact that cheap natural gas did not come to the rescue as many predicted. Just to be clear: SoCal has no shortage of natural gas capacity.

Source: EIA

Luckily for consumers, an end may be in sight. Edison has submitted its plans for a safe restart of one of the reactors at 70% of normal operating capacity. That would immediately boost the region’s power generation by 770 MW and provide a backstop against any heat waves that may engulf the region this summer.

The fuel investors need?
A potential restart would also give atomic energy advocates — and investors — more data to prove nuclear’s importance to American energy. Should the spread between prices in the north and south of the state shrink once SONGS is restarted, it will show without a doubt what is already starkly evident: dropping nuclear energy will not be painless. Will energy policy take notice?

Page 1 of 2
Loading Comments...