InvestingDaily.com

Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.



Close
FEATURED STRATEGY

These contrarian stocks thrive in good markets and bad

These contrarian stocks thrive in good markets and badIn my new profit guide, I reveal a group of super-safe stocks that don’t behave like regular stocks during market downturns. In fact, these rock-solid beauties historically SKYROCKET and THRIVE during the worst of times. During the last three market busts, stocks in this contrarian sector soared 42%… 135%… and even 200%. Do yourself a favor. Check out my free profit guide today.

 

A New Lifeline for Nuclear

By Richard Stavros on September 23, 2016

It would be a bit much to call the latest efforts to revive the nuclear power industry a “renaissance,” as there have been so many false dawns. In fact, in a recent issue of Utility Forecaster, we noted that global nuclear power generation is poised for a substantial decline given the number of announced closures, higher operating costs, safety issues and a lack of political support.

But that may be about to change, at least in the U.S.

Recent developments in New York offer the industry and would-be contrarian investors a small ray of hope. State regulators’ new willingness to pay for zero-carbon nuclear could materially change the fortunes of nuclear power-owning utilities, if adopted nationally.

The largest diversified utilities with nuclear that would stand to benefit are Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC), Entergy Corp. (NYSE: ETR), Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE: D) and NextEra Energy Inc. (NYSE: NEE), to name a few.

Last month, the New York State Public Service Commission approved a $7.6 billion expenditure to support existing nuclear power in the state as part of its Clean Energy Standard, which aims to have 50% of electricity come from renewable resources by 2030.

New York has set a significant precedent because its standard is the first mandate that protects existing nuclear power plants. Previously, only Ohio accounted for nuclear as part of its renewable portfolio standard, but only new plants would qualify.

Most other renewable portfolio standards (RPS) promote the development of wind, solar and biomass, while nuclear has become the forgotten stepchild.

But there have been some efforts underway to include nuclear in other states.

Illinois had been working earlier this year to expand its RPS to include nuclear in its low-carbon portfolio standard, but efforts stalled in the legislature.

In response to the failed legislation, Exelon, one of the country’s largest nuclear plant owners, announced that it would shutter its two non-economic merchant nuclear plants.

Ironically, the passage of New York’s Clean Energy Standard (CES) kept its nuclear plants there up and running.  “Without the CES, these plants would have been at risk of closure,” Exelon said of its two nuclear plants in upstate New York–Ginna and Nine Mile Point.

In California, PG&E Corp. (NYSE: PCG) tried and failed to get nuclear included in California’s RPS. Consequently, it’s decided to close its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant by 2025.

PG&E said it would seek to replace Diablo Canyon’s roughly 18,000 gigawatt hours of annual electricity–almost 10% of California’s in-state electricity–through improved energy efficiency, which seems like a tall order given the scale.

That brings us to our main criticism of efforts to phase out nuclear power: A proper technological replacement does not yet exist.

Although clean-energy advocates believe battery storage offers the solution to the intermittency of wind and solar, the technology is still in its infancy. In the upcoming issue of Utility Forecaster, we take a closer look at the technology’s progress.

Nuclear plants currently account for more than 60% of carbon-free generation in the U.S., according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. And wind and solar have not been able to scale up fast enough to replace the lost zero-carbon megawatts.

The shuttering of nuclear and hydro power is actually causing a decline in our country’s share of carbon-free electricity. That may be why there is new momentum at the highest levels of government to have nuclear power continue to be part of America’s generation mix.

The Feds Move Beyond CPP

Like most investors, we had believed that the enactment of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan would be a boon for nuclear power-owning utilities, until the Supreme Court put a stay on enactment, pending the resolution of legal challenges.

But whatever the Supreme Court decides now, there’s a new initiative by the federal government to keep existing and new nuclear power plants running, and it should be monitored closely by investors.

An expert panel appointed by Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz issued a draft report last week on the future of nuclear power and made policy and market recommendations that would support new nuclear power development beginning in 2030, when the majority of current U.S. commercial reactors would approach 60 years of operation.

The task force endorsed DOE’s efforts to work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state regulatory authorities, and regional and independent system operators to encourage arrangements that will preserve the U.S. fleet until the end of its useful life, subject to continued compliance with prevailing safety and environmental regulations.

“There are two key issues that must also be addressed for full cost competitiveness to be achieved for both existing and advanced U.S. reactors,” the panel said.

“First, nuclear overnight capital costs must decline, and electricity markets must recognize the value of carbon-free electricity generation based on the social cost of carbon emissions avoided … by assessing a carbon-emission charge on electricity generation,” they argued. In other words, they want to put a price on carbon.

Another way to support nuclear, the task force advocated, is by “extending a production payment on carbon-free electricity generation of about $0.027 per kilowatt electric hour ($213 million for a 1,000 megawatt reactor operating at a 90% capacity factor) for a period of time.” Translation: Temporarily subsidize nuclear power generation.

Clearly, reports of the nuclear industry’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. And if these policies are put into place, this would be yet another time when nuclear power seemed headed for the energy-tech graveyard, only to be saved at the 11th hour.

To be sure, in addition to the economics, the technology’s safety issues continue to be a concern. With the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan still a fresh memory, the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) and NOPE (Not on Planet Earth) opposition to such infrastructure projects has become stronger. And recent cost overruns on new nuclear projects have been inexcusable.

But if the economics were to improve, the safety issues addressed with newer, better designs, and utilities could build them on time and under budget, we could well be on the threshold of a new era for nuclear and a new investment opportunity.


You might also enjoy…

 

12 Stocks Virtually Guaranteed to Go Up in 2018

You may not believe it, but I have a calendar in my hands right now that tells me the exact date and time when a few stock are practically guaranteed to go up. 

Twelve of them, in fact.

And if you were to invest in them following the simple buy and sell instructions found in this calendar…

You could be making $1,181… $11,814…. and as much as $190,916 more than by using a “buy-and-hold” strategy.

And here’s the best part…

I’m giving away a few copies of this calendar to interested investors (First come, first served).

With this calendar, you could get higher profits with less risk.

Click here to get the full story, and to claim your copy.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    Bob Wallace Reply September 26, 2016 at 1:04 AM EDT

    First, a price on carbon will only rescue those paid off reactors which are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. We are not going to create a carbon price large enough to cover new nuclear.

    New nuclear will cost somewhere in the $0.13/kWh to $0.20kWh. New onshore wind, unsubsidized, is under $0.03/kWh and falling. New utility PV solar is under $0.06, unsubsidized, and falling.

    The best we could hope for is that the roughly 25% of our existing reactors which are in financial trouble might be spared. At least until they encounter a major repair bill.

    I wouldn’t go betting good money that nuclear has much of a future. At least outside countries where an authoritarian government makes the decision. Markets won’t pay for nuclear.

    Right now we are watching a slow die out of nuclear in most of the world. The US has four reactors under construction which may be online by 2020. We’ve also got seven reactors with scheduled closure dates before 2020. We’ve got another two rectors scheduled to close in 2024/25 and it’s very unlikely any replacement reactors will begin construction to replace them. That’s a five reactor net loss in the next decade. Plus it’s fairly likely that at least one of our 40+ reactors will experience the breakage of something really expensive.

    If you want to see the future of new nuclear in the US take a look at the large utility companies that are in the nuclear business. Both Exelon and Entergy recently said that they see their companies building no more reactors in the foreseeable future. TVA just repositioned its budget away from nuclear and to renewable energy. Duke got out some time back. All the California and West Coast utilities are done with nuclear.

    Look to Europe. Germany, Belgium and other countries are working toward getting rid of all their reactors. France has announced that the cost of electricity from their paid off reactors is so high that they are starting to install renewable generation in order to turn off their most expensive reactors.

    Twenty years ago nuclear seemed our best route off fossil fuels. Wind and solar were really expensive. But now wind is our least expensive new source of electricity and solar is rapidly moving below CCNG into second lowest place.