Illinois Nuclear plants shutting down in Fall of 2021

[Finishline42]

I am conflicted on this. It's what I have been saying though, the cost to run a nuclear plant keeps them from running as much as they need to to keep costs down.

Wind farms contributed to only 7% of Illinois electricity in 2019 so it would seem most of this is from Nat Gas plants.

From one of the following tweets:

Together the plants employ 1,500+ full-time & another 2,000+ skilled workers during refueling outages, most from local union halls. The plants pay nearly $63 million in taxes annually to support local schools, fire, police and other services.

Link to tweet

[Wellstone ruled]

1. Not surprised,

Exelon has been on a build out of their Wind Farms for several years.

[Finishline42]

4. Yes I've noticed that

I think what they are complaining about is how grid operators buy electricity.

wind and solar will bid low to make the cut because they have low operational costs. Last bid taken is what everybody gets paid for that 6 to 10 min segment.

Coal, gas and nuclear all have much higher operational costs. If you drop the capacity utilization it increases those cost per hour which makes wind and solar look even cheaper.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. Transmission Lines are a real

problem Nation Wide. It boils down to this,not in my back yard. Watched first hand,Farmers throwing Logging Chains over towers and pulling them down. Not in my back yard.

Midwest Energy(Rocky Mountain Power)is now in the midst of a mega Law Suit in Idaho over a Transmission line built from Southern Utah to Butte Montana several years ago. Line was permitted and Right of Way secured as per state laws at the time. Now that the Line has been completed and ownership of the Power Entity has changed since Permitting,well Idaho wants to have it torn down.

Bottom line is,the size of the check cut for the Powers that be in the State Legislatures.

[Finishline42]

8. The Grain State Express will be a key (or similar)

If this ever gets built it will shut down a lot of fossil fuel plants.

Transmission lines and battery cost going down eats away at their profit models.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/grain-belt-express-transmission-line-wins-key-battles-in-missouri

Court approves Invenergy’s purchase of $2.3 billion transmission project, which would carry 4 gigawatts of Midwest wind power to PJM’s grid.

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Just a start.

Midwest Energy is in the process of a 450 Wind Tower build out in north west Iowa,yes Iowa,in the deepest reddest area of the State. Siemens are running their Pipestone and Brandon plants wide open 24/7 and are still Importing Towers in a effort to keep the build out on schedule.

Battery Storage is the next major jump. Even for us home owners who have Solar the wait time is close to three years. At least that was out latest update. Priority goes to those whom are a greatest risk of Power loss as per our Panel supplier.

Hey if New South Wales in Australia can solve their Electrical problem with a Battery Storage Facility,we sure as hell can.

[Finishline42]

15. Seems every new wind or solar farm these days has battery storage

Iowa is getting close to 50% of their electricity coming from wind - which really flies in the face of those that say it doesn't work.

Last I heard a landowner gets $500/month per windmill. Which is why wind and solar keep getting incentives.

[Wellstone ruled]

16. The Land Lease vary from area to area.

As a Farmer in South western Minny said,if it was not for his Tower Ground Lease,he could not afford to stay in the Farming Business. Like he says,best decision he ever made,got all this land that is to damn rocky to row crop and the only thing that grows is quack grass and weeds,might as well do something with it,still got to pay Real Estate Taxes on it.

[progree]

17. I haven't seen any wind projects with batteries. For solar, yes, they seem to have 4 hour capacity

batteries that are great for the solar situation -- when the sun gets low in the late afternoon, the batteries can provide 4 more hours (at full MW capacity or more hours at reduced MW capacity) to cover the system peak in the late afternoon early evening. So don't have to start some gas turbine late in the afternoon.

For wind, to cover low-wind-speed periods, they need more than 4 hours to do much good, seems to me. Oh, I'm sure there are some wind + battery out there, but it's rare. Just wondering what you've seen.

[Finishline42]

18. Here's one in North Texas by Exelon interesting enough.

Energy storage developer GlidePath on Tuesday announced it acquired a 149 MW North Texas wind farm from Exelon, and plans to optimize the output of those eight projects through battery storage.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/storage-developer-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-149-mw-texas-wind-portfolio-i/561369/#:~:text=Energy%20storage%20developer%20GlidePath%20on,Power%20Pool%20(SPP)%20market.

From reading battery storage allows them to shift power to peak times. From what I've read they have excess production at nights and some utilities give it away.

I agree on the solar part.

[progree]

19. Like I said, "Oh, I'm sure there are some wind + battery out there", but one project

doesn't make me think that

"Seems every new wind or solar farm these days has battery storage"

I'm inclined to agree on the solar, but not at all on the wind. But you did "pop my cherry" with the one example because like I said, I hadn't seen one before -- I've read many postings about wind projects, but none had or mentioned batteries (I generally read the full article too). I knew if I took a little time, I'd probably uncover one or two myself. But when I did, I mostly saw articles about why aren't batteries doing for wind like they are doing for solar.

Yes, I have no doubt that a battery's best use would mostly be at the power system peak hours. But a 4 hour battery doesn't convert a wind project, or a solar project to one that can reliably supply at or near rated capacity for an entire cloudy or low-wind day like a fossil or nuclear plant.

It works in Arizona and other desert climes with solar because so few days are very cloudy or overcast, so the overall reliability is close to that of fossil-fueled and nuclear plants -- the only shortcoming is the late afternoon, early evening, and the 4 hour battery takes care of that.

Wind isn't the same -- too many days where it is low-wind all day.

[Finishline42]

21. Just makes sense to use batteries to be able to shift when the power gets used

I agree in the situation of a single wind farm.

But if you are a utility and have multiple battery banks in your system I think that changes things.

I don't have info but I would assume there are times when max production doesn't match peak use. I brought up the Texas issues. I think they get a lot of production over night in the winter, when demand is at it's lowest. If you have enough storage to bridge the peak that happens as factories and offices open in the morning, it might allow you keep one of your power plants idle that would normally be on standby. And if they are on standby, they are burning fuel.

Battery storage does the grid stabilization chores much better than coal, gas or nuclear.

[progree]

22. I don't doubt that if you have enough battery capacity, then it is pure nirvana. However, 4 hour

batteries matching the MW capacity of the wind farm doesn't do it, no matter how many wind farms you have. After all if you have 10 windfarms of 100 MW each (total 1000 MW), each with a 100 MW 4 hour battery (total 1000 MW and 4000 MWh), is not going to be the same reliability as a group of thermal-electric power plants (fossil, nuclear) totaling 1000 MW each with 90% reliability. Not even close. Not on a low-wind day. You need more than 4 hours of storage to cover an entire low-wind day.

Yes, yes, in a large utility with wind farms all over the place, connected to other utilities with wind farms all over the places, chances are it will be windy in some parts when its low wind in other parts. So yes, that improves the basic picture.

Any amount of battery capacity is quite helpful, and yes, will sometimes keep thermal-electric generation offline, or at least at lower loading, for sure. I'm not saying that 1000 MW and 4000 MWh of batteries is worthless! I'm just saying its not enough to turn a 1000 MW of wind into a 1000 MW of reliable capacity anywhere near equivalent to 1000 MW of thermal-electric generation.

My job for years at an electric utility late 70's thru the 80's included operational planning -- how to meet the load -- the load has to be met every minute of the day (not just at peak) or the system falls apart, that's just the physics of the situation (of course we shed some customer load before that happens, but that is very rarely done -- we're not a 3rd world country). Ditto for a couple years in power supply planning. We had programs to simulate the power system. And undoubtedly still do.

I'm not knocking batteries, I wish the heck that I had tons and tons of them in my day. And of course I understand the economics of charging these things up when energy costs $6/MWh at night and using them to offset $15/Mwh up to $30/Mwh, sometimes more, during the day (sorry: 1980's fuel + variable O&M costs). That was our system at the time.

Nowadays we have systems with negative energy costs at night (often because of a utility trying to get rid of surplus wind), and yeah, that would be a great time to set the batteries to recharge!

As for the grid stabilization chores - coal, gas, and nuclear did just fine in my day, but my utility had a lot of power plants online and was strongly connected to those of other large utilities. I think the issue is with an isolated system, or one weakly connected to the regional power system.

[Finishline42]

24. re: grid stabilization chores

Thanks for info backed by real world experience.

What I'm going on are the stories about Tesla's Horndale Power Reserve. Early on the story was how much quicker and cheaper they were able to fulfill this task than the normal coal fired power plant they had. But their system doesn't sound as robust as where you worked, just as you thought.

Also there was a story about Scotland buying batteries for that purpose (can't find that one now).

The advantage in my mind with wind, solar and batteries is that we are in a build-out phase. Every year they are getting better and cheaper. Operational cost is less and when they are used they cut into the profit margins of traditional power plants which drives up their costs and of course leads to more wind and solar.

Again thanks.

Do you have a good source for how power is bought through the auctions?

[progree]

26. Re: Do you have a good source for how power is bought through the auctions?

You've probably seen my number 14 below. Well I'm still not getting it.

I've spent almost 2 more hours just now trying to understand the PJM Interconnection some more -- the one that includes Chicagoland, and then everything east of Indiana and between New York and North Carolina. 13 states and D.C. I pick on it because I've delved into it in the past because it seems to be the epicenter of nuclear and coal shutdowns due to PJM capacity auctions.

PJM Territory map - https://pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/territory-served.aspx

PJM Capacity Market (RPM) - https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/rpm.aspx
. . . Learn more: https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/capacity-markets.aspx

PJM Energy Market -- it's real time (5 minutes) and also next day -- https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/energy.aspx

PJM operations and markets - shows fuel mix, load and wind forecasts for next 24 hours, generation mix https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx
. . . kind of fun. But it's the weekend night as I post this, so is low low load. Will be much more interesting on Monday after say 9am or whatever.

I'm more interested in the capacity market. Nice they project out for 3 years and they make sure that they have enough capacity for the next 3 years. But then what? Most power generation takes a minimum of 3 years, most longer to build. But I'm guess the picture that is starting to form in my mind is that capacity is abundant -- over-abundant it seems -- and total customer demand (the load) is not growing or only very very slowly -- which is just the opposite of my experience and training. So it's part of the reason I'm having trouble modernizing my brain.

Beyond 3 years maybe they have something like I described in number 14 -- where the member utilities send data on their generation capacity and firm power purchase / sale commitments to PJM. Not an auction, just so PJM (and the member utilities) can assess what the situation will look like in the near term out to say 15 or 20 years. I haven't read anything about that at PJM, but haven't looked hard. I mostly have been reading about utilities bitching about the capacity auctions unfairly favoring some types of generation over others...

For example --

Energy Regulator's Order Could Boost Coal Over Renewables, Raising Costs for Consumers, Inside Climate News, 12/20/19
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122019/ferc-pjm-grid-coal-subsidy-ruling-renewable-energy-nuclear-illinois-pennsylvania-climate-change

Protecting Power Plant Owners From Clean Energy Policies May Have A Perverse Result, 8/12/20
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcherney/2020/08/12/protecting-power-plant-owners-from-clean-energy-policies-may-have-a-perverse-result/#3cd11738561c

[Finishline42]

28. Yes I did see #14

What I didn't know is that coal is getting support while nuclear is not - which doesn't make one bit of sense.

Coal for electricity is dead for a number of reasons.

Pollution controls are expensive

Transportation is expensive - nat gas uses pipelines - not truck, barge, or train.

Land needed for a coal plant is more because of on site storage for coal. Nat gas is a storage tank.

The fly ash containment ponds - I bet the insurance on the over 400 in the US is expensive - especially since the $1 billion breech in East TN. that still isn't cleaned up. Plus there are ponds that were not constructed properly and are leaking.

Dropping electricity demand is one of the reasons the S Carolina reactors were cancelled half way thru construction.

It's amazing what converting to cfl bulbs and having energy standards on appliances can do. Better construction standards help as well.

Interesting that they are looking at wind forecasts, not surprising. Read one time there was a storm that rolled thru Texas and either before or after the wind speed dropped suddenly as part of the storm front. Certainly a case for battery storage in those situations - to moderate the output from a windfarm. Wonder what effect wind gusts have on a windfarm?

BTW, what's the difference in the time it takes a coal fired plant to go from a standstill to producing and a nat gas plant (ie warm up procedures for the turbine)?

Something that grid operators don't have data on, but can be inferred. My utility only has data on the excess production that my PV system produces - not what it produces and I'm using. That skews EIA data as well.

[progree]

23. "I would assume there are times when max production doesn't match peak use"

If something doesn't happen within a few seconds to restore the balance, the system will fall apart, and all the generators will trip out, and the region goes dark.

What happens when a utility's generation fails to meet the load (say one of its big generators trips out) is that system frequency begins to drop, and generators from the neighbors (and the deficient utility itself) that are on line but not at full load automatically pick up their generation to restore system frequency. (The pool as a whole keeps enough generation online but not fully loaded to cover most contingencies -- the amount of generation capacity online less the system load is known as spinning reserve). If that doesn't do the trick, then customer load is shed in increments.

For simplicity, let's say we haven't gotten to the load-shedding point (we're not a 3rd world country), and let's say the deficient utility's other online generators have picked up to their full capacities, but are still insufficient to cover the deficit. That means the neighboring utilities are burning extra fuel and thus incurring extra costs, in order to make up for what the deficient utility should be, but isn't generating. So then the deficient utility negotiates power purchases from its neighbors. And/or puts some more generators online. And it's paradise again.

[mr_lebowski]

2. I'm not conflicted, I think this is a tragedy and huge mistake ...

We need more nuclear power, not less. WAY more quite frankly.

[Finishline42]

5. We aren't building any more nuclear plants

But how do you force ratepayers to pay extra to keep them in operation?

Ohio just got slammed forcing that thru the legislature.

[mr_lebowski]

7. We have to start factoring in currently-externalized costs ...

And to do so, we need a national effort, which ain't gonna happen under this regime.

Not criticizing Ohio, or the rate-payers. I understand that the economics are what they are.

We need to change that equation as a country.

Natural gas is probably NOT cheaper when climate change cost is factored in. And more importantly, we are in a fracking-induced boom right now, but it's not going to last that long.

We need to start funding clean energy like we fund the damn military. And nuclear energy, while not AS clean as say wind power, is still much lower carbon than fossil fuels. Subsidizing already-built nuclear power at the federal level to keep the plants open through this temporary fracking boom makes a lot of sense to me.

[Finishline42]

11. I think nat gas prices spiking would change everything

When does this start to have an impact on prices?

Chesapeake joins more than 200 other bankrupt U.S. shale producers since 2015

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/6/29/chesapeake-joins-more-than-200-other-bankrupt-us-shale-producers

Main problem with funding nuclear is that coal will want a lifeline as well and wind and solar are only going to get cheaper.

[mr_lebowski]

12. Coal will WANT one, sure ... but if we had adults in charge, they'd be told to pound sand ...

This is a National Security issue. Coal is contrary to national interests.

So, tough shit.

[beachbumbob]

3. Execlon been doing shakedowns on Illinois rate payers for years, they have made BILLIONS in

profit and currently under Federal investigations.

Both these plants are sellable. I would make it mandatory that any and all Illinois tax subsidizes be repaid as part of closing them down since they were built

[murielm99]

9. I am close enough to the Byron plant

that I can see it from my front windows.

The main concern at the moment is the job loss and tax loss. This will have a very negative effect on the economy around here. We are stressed already, as are most areas.

[Finishline42]

10. That is part of what concerns me

That's a lot of jobs and tax revenue and not easily replaced.

[progree]

14. It's not a final, irrevocable decision, but some things have to change e.g.the PJM capacity auction

rules -- I don't know much about them, I have read a lot, but I'm still not "getting it".

Back when I worked for Northern States Power (NSP) in Minneapolis in the power supply planning and the operational planning departments as a superintendant in the latter, we and our power pool at the time -- Midcontinent Area Power Pool - projected the utility's and the power pool's situation out at least 20 years. For the nearer term (several years out to allow for construction times) the projected capacity was assessed -- at the pool level for a LOLP (Loss of Load Probability) of 1 in 10 years, as did our neighboring power pools. Computer models of the operation of the utility and the pool are used to determine LOLP (and economics in the NSP studies). The scheduled maintenance outages and estimates of the forced outage rate for each unit is included in these models.

I haven't run across a similar process in what I'm reading about PJM. I am *NOT* anti-wind and I am *NOT* anti-solar, but yes, the wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always shine. If there is sanity, the models need to reflect that characteristic. (My time at NSP was before these were significant factors).

Edited to add: not to mention credits and penalites for emissions. And/or if that's not enough, enough of a subsidy from somewhere if that's the most economic way to reach emissions targets while assuring sufficient reliability in the power supply.

Edited to add: Of course storage batteries should be modelled too and credited in these as appropriate (obviously it depends on both their MW and MWh capacities).

https://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/Pages/Exelon-Generation-to-Retire-Illinois%E2%80%99--Byron-and-Dresden-Nuclear-Plants-in-2021.aspx

and we will continue our dialogue with policymakers on ways to prevent these closures,” said Crane. “To that end, we have opened our books to policymakers and will continue to do so for any lawmaker who wishes to judge the plants’ profitability.”

... Despite being among the most efficient and reliable units in the nation’s nuclear fleet, Dresden and Byron face revenue shortfalls in the hundreds of millions of dollars because of declining energy prices and market rules that allow fossil fuel plants to underbid clean resources in the PJM capacity auction, even though there is broad public support for sustaining and expanding clean energy resources to address the climate crisis. The plants’ economic challenges are further exacerbated bya recent FERC ruling that undermines longstanding state clean energy programs and gives an additional competitive advantage to polluting energy sources in the auction. As a result of these market rules, Exelon Generation’s LaSalle and Braidwood nuclear stations in Illinois, each of which house two nuclear units and together employ more than 1,500 skilled workers, are also at high risk for premature closure.

In January 2019, Illinois committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the targets set in the Paris climate agreement. While the state is currently at roughly 85 percent progress towards the 2025 goal, if the four economically challenged nuclear plants (Dresden, Byron, Braidwood and LaSalle) prematurely retire, Illinois will drop to only 20 percent of the way toward the goal. Electric sector emissions in Illinois will increase by 70 percent.

The notification also is necessary to give PJM enough time to conduct an analysis confirming that retiring Byron and Dresden will not cause a shortage of generating capacity in northern Illinois during times of peak demand.

[Massacure]

25. Would a Biden administration significantly change the economic situations for these plants?

Lake Michigan has good wind resources, it would be nice to build out several gigawatts of offshore wind over the next 5-10 years and keep these plans nuclear plants operating while doing so. It's probably safe to assume that at least half of the 4GW of capacity being lost will be replaced by additional load on coal and natural gas plants.

[progree]

27. US / Biden's $2 Trillion Clean Energy Plan Includes Nuclear, July 16, 2020

https://www.nucnet.org/news/biden-s-usd2-trillion-clean-energy-plan-includes-nuclear-7-4-2020

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has released a $2 trillion clean energy plan designed to achieve a carbon emissions-free energy sector by 2035. The plan includes keeping existing nuclear energy plants in operation.

Mr Biden announced plans to spend $2 trillion over four years to significantly escalate the use of clean energy in the transportation, electricity and building sectors, part of a suite of sweeping proposals designed to create economic opportunities and strengthen infrastructure while also tackling climate change.

Campaign officials said they expected to achieve the goal by encouraging the installation of “millions of new solar panels and tens of thousands of wind turbines,” but also keeping in place existing nuclear energy plants.

... Six commercial nuclear plants have shut down in the US since 2013 and 12 more are scheduled to retire within seven years.

The civilian nuclear energy industry has called for market reforms to help the nuclear industry and has long argued that nuclear energy’s contribution to energy security and grid stability should be rewarded.

Maria Korsnick, president and chief executive officer of the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute has said the status quo, in which markets recognise only short-term price signals and ignore the essential role of nuclear generation, will lead to more premature shutdowns of well-run nuclear facilities. “Once closed, these facilities are shuttered forever,” she said.

The above one of many Google hits on "biden and nuclear power". I'm sure he also includes a push on advanced nuclear designs too.

Now how exactly what he will do to keep uneconomic nuclear plants operating, I don't know. Subsidies? Making PJM and power pools like them somehow give proper credit to the low carbon and high reliability generation with a lot of inertia to help maintain system stability. (I don't know what he could do as president to make the power pools change their rules for capacity auctions .. acts of Congress needed? Appoint the right FERC commissioners?)

[Finishline42]

20. Here are 3 more being shut down.

The Iowa reactor was already being shut down, going down a couple months early due to damage to cooling towers.

The one in Scotland is having problems and they have enough wind so it's no problem replacing it's capacity.

Link to tweet