This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Future of U.S. Nuclear Power Fleet Depends Mostly on Natural Gas Prices, Carbon Policies

U.S. nuclear power generation capacity in several AEO cases, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2018

Existing U.S. nuclear power generating plants operate under increasingly competitive market conditions brought on by relatively low natural gas prices, increasing electricity generation from renewable energy sources, and limited growth in electric power demand. Several sensitivity cases prepared for EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (AEO2018) show the potential effects on the U.S. nuclear power fleet of different assumptions for natural gas prices, potential carbon policies, and nuclear power plant operating costs.

Currently, 60 nuclear power plants operate in the United States with a combined electricity generating capacity of 99 gigawatts (GW). Nine plants with a combined 11 GW of capacity have announced plans to retire by 2025. Based on assumptions in the AEO2018 Reference case, which reflects current laws and regulations, EIA expects additional unplanned retirements will reduce total U.S. nuclear generating capacity from 99 GW in 2017 to 79 GW by 2050.

nuclear power generation capacity and natural gas prices at Henry Hub, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2018

Higher or lower natural gas prices. About half of the existing nuclear fleet operates in deregulated wholesale electricity (i.e., merchant) markets, where natural gas-fired generators can and sometimes do set the marginal price for electricity. For this reason, changes in natural gas prices affect electric power markets. Two sensitivity caseswith different assumptions for oil and natural gas resources and technology result in higher and lower natural gas prices.

In the High Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, lower natural gas prices lead to more nuclear retirements, and total nuclear capacity falls to 55 GW by 2050 in this case. Conversely, in the Low Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, higher natural gas prices lead to fewer nuclear retirements, but nuclear capacity still falls to 83 GW in 2050. In all three of these cases, no additional nuclear plants come online beyond the units currently under construction in Georgia (Vogtle Units 3 and 4), but in some locations nuclear power plant capacity increases because of uprates.

Higher or lower nuclear operating costs. Operating costs have played a major role in recent retirement decisions. At least five currently operating nuclear plants have requested state-level price support to continue operating. In two sensitivity cases, assumed operating costs were raised or lowered by 20%.

On their own, changes in operating costs have a relatively minor effect on changes in nuclear capacity. With higher operating costs, nuclear capacity falls to 66 GW by 2050; with lower operating costs, nuclear capacity falls to 84 GW—levels that are 13 GW lower than and 5 GW higher than Reference case capacity in 2050, respectively.

nuclear power generation capacity, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2018

Combined effects of higher and lower natural gas prices and operating costs. Four cases combine the assumptions above so that higher and lower natural gas prices are combined with higher and lower nuclear operating costs. Nuclear capacity increases the most in the case that combines high natural gas prices and lower nuclear operating costs, resulting in 134 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, or 35 GW higher than current levels. Conversely, the combination of low natural gas prices and higher nuclear operating costs reduces the nuclear fleet to 18 GW, or about 18% of the current nuclear power fleet.

nuclear power generation capacity, as explained in the article text

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2018

Effects of various carbon fees. Potential policies that would subject fossil fuel-fired power plants, such as those fueled by coal, natural gas, and petroleum, to fees based on their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would result in higher wholesale electricity prices, and in turn, would allow nuclear power plants—which do not generate CO2 emissions—to become more economically competitive.

Two cases implement fees of $15 per ton of CO2 and $25 per ton of CO2 (in 2017 dollars) starting in 2020, increasing by 5% in each subsequent year in real dollar terms. In both cases, much of the existing nuclear fleet remains competitive, and additional nuclear plants are constructed so that capacity in 2050 is higher than current levels. With a $15 per ton CO2 fee, nuclear capacity increases to 106 GW in 2050; at $25 per ton, capacity increases to 145 GW in 2050.

The full analysis on the AEO2018 Nuclear Power Outlook provides additional detail on the current electricity market environment, recent and announced plant retirements, certain state policies supporting nuclear power, and implications for the electricity generating mix across the sensitivity cases discussed above.

Principal contributor: Michael Scott

Original Post

U.S. EIA: Today in Energy's picture

Thank U.S. EIA: for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on May 9, 2018

This prediction is about the past; oil & gas.
The answer on the question: “At what price levels will the continued price decrease of solar, wind and storage (incl. PtG) stop?”
predicts far more accurate the future of nuclear!

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on May 10, 2018

Bas, Michael’s article compares the relative merits of various types of dispatchable energy, not “solar, wind and storage (incl. PtG)”. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

No one uses oil & gas in the Netherlands any more? Here in the U.S., oil & gas are very much about the present.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »