Sentences with phrase «competitive coal and nuclear»

Low - cost natural gas is making gas - fired power plants cheaper and more competitive to operate, causing less cost - competitive coal and nuclear to retire.

Not exact matches

At that price, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable electricity sources like wind become roughly cost - competitive, Moniz says.

Adding a price on carbon emissions at even a «modest» level of $ 25 per ton would make new nuclear energy competitive with coal and natural gas even if the risk premium remains, the MIT study concludes.

Eliminating this financial risk premium makes nuclear power levelized electricity cost competitive with that of coal, and it becomes lower than that of coal when a modest price on carbon dioxide emissions is imposed,» the report says.

Secretary Perry's attempts to tip the scale in favor of uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants to provide a «resilience» benefit that doesn't exist would have increased carbon emissions, raised costs to consumers, and distorted competitive markets.»

The ridges surrounding our little desert metropolis display something on the order of 400 1 megawatt wind turbines, built primarily by private capitol with the incentive of a 1.5 cent per kwhour subsidy for wind power (which is about how close wind power is to being competitive with coal and nuclear power at this time).

Perhaps most significant, hydrogen - powered electricity is now competitive with nuclear, LNG and coal in carbon and risk - adjusted terms (ie against nuclear).

PJM vice president Stu Bresler said the plan described in the grid operator's November 15 report was in the works well before the Department of Energy proposed rules to guarantee cost recovery for coal and nuclear plants in the PJM region and certain other competitive markets.

More dramatically, fear of radiation led to extraordinary safety requirements for nuclear power plants, far in excess of controls imposed on other high - risk industrial facilities, which made nuclear power less cost - competitive and led to more reliance on coal.

We can only do that if we can have nuclear at a cost that is competitive with coal and, preferably, as much cheaper than coal as we can achieve while still meeting all our requirements (including increased safety).

As we're gettng rid of our coal fired and nuclear power stations what is our advanced industrialised country supposed to use to power our indusries and how do we remain competitive against other countries paying lip service to the environment including your own

Offshore wind is still one of the more expensive electricity generating technologies, but onshore wind is often highly competitive with coal, natural gas, and nuclear power in areas with strong wind resources.

Although 10 percent may not sound high, it reflected a major achievement for both technologies, which have overcome numerous barriers to become competitive with coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

Just recently, FERC approved another workaround for ISO - NE, i.e., Competitive Auctions with Sponsored Policy Resources (CASPR), but this workaround could result in nuclear and coal - fired power plants closing more quickly which will exacerbate the reliability problem.

And let's ASS - U-ME that all future nuclear plants that are built are fully competitive with natural gas or coal plants that would otherwise have been built, so the total added investment is around $ 2 trillion.

Nuclear power is already fully competitive with conventional coal electrical power today, and more difficult and expensive to extract sources of coal will make nuclear even more advantNuclear power is already fully competitive with conventional coal electrical power today, and more difficult and expensive to extract sources of coal will make nuclear even more advantnuclear even more advantageous.

At this point, if there is going to be a revival of nuclear energy anywhere, it appears it will happen only with the arrival of new technology (what is referred to as «fourth generation» design) that resolves longstanding concerns and is competitive price-wise with coal and gas.

Free markets would be preferred, but the US failed to create competitive power markets under deregulation because it awarded old coal and nuclear power plants all sorts of advantages including stranded cost subsidies, grandfather exemptions to environmental regs, preferential grid access, etc..

Back in April, DOE Secretary Perry issued a memo calling for a reliability study of U.S. power systems, expressing concerns that competitive markets, renewables, and regulations were forcing retirement of baseload (i.e. coal and nuclear) power plants critical to reliability.

In the background is a growing resistance to wholesale markets, led by utilities with substantial nuclear and coal - fired generation who are seeking state subsidies to essentially put their thumbs on the scale of the competitive wholesale markets.

Now it faces new challenges: retirement of coal, oil, and nuclear baseload generation; the rise of renewables and how to fit them into the region - wide generating system while continuing to provide reliable service; and the potentially game - changing role of energy storage, if it actually becomes economically competitive.

Baseload power (i.e. coal and nuclear) interests that are being edged out by more competitive natural gas power generators are increasingly relying on the powerful emotion of fear to draw policymaker support for their struggling assets.

The high efficiency, modular capability and low capital cost reduces cost over conventional nuclear by 30 % making it competitive against gas and coal fired plants.

Conservatives are in a bit of an awkward position in that they support subsidies for «clean coal» (coal with carbon capture and sequestration) and nuclear power, but neither is competitive on today's energy markets.

While utilities in Ohio, New York and elsewhere have sought «around market» charges after affiliated coal and nuclear plants became less competitive, Germany's large utilities are charting new paths forward as that country curbs its reliance on fossil fuels.

This proposal would reward coal and nuclear plants in competitive markets that store fuel on site, with the rationale being that these fuel sources are more fuel secure.

Cheap gas is making coal, nuclear, renewables, and virtually all other energy technologies less competitive.