Abstract
The Indian Point Energy Center, with two operational nuclear reactors, sits in a densely populated region just 40 mi north of midtown Manhattan. It is a vital part of the electricity supply system for the New York City region, but its propinquity to the largest city in the USA has raised public concerns about its safe operation, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack. Such concerns prompted the US Congress to request a study of potential options for replacing the 2,000 MW of power provided by Indian Point. This paper assesses the potential for electricity alternatives in the Indian Point service area. It documents that increased investments in energy efficiency, combined heat and power facilities, and solar photovoltaics could cost-competitively reduce peak demand in the Indian Point service area by 1 GW or more by 2010 and by 1.5 GW by 2015. If the cost of solar photovoltaics can be brought to near-competitive levels over the next decade, these totals could be raised to 1.7 GW by 2015, approaching the capacity of the Indian Point Energy Center. This result challenges the conventional focus of system operators and policymakers on supply-side solutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is wide variation in retail rates across the New York State, but a New York City resident may pay over 20 cents per kilowatt hour. See http://www.dps.state.ny.us/bills.htm. Commercial and industrial customers would pay less.
The nuclear facility’s propinquity to the largest city in the USA has raised public concerns about its safe operation, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack. Such concerns prompted the US Congress to request a study on potential options for replacing the 2,000 MW of power provided by Indian Point. The request, initiated by Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York’s 18th District, was directed to the US Department of Energy, which in turn commissioned a study by the National Research Council of the National Academies. The NRC established the Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs to conduct the study (National Academies 2006). See the Acknowledgement for further details.
Continuing on in our analysis (and using data on the economic potential for residential and commercial buildings efficiency [in MWh] from NYSERDA 2003), we estimated that Zone K has 0.451 of the maximum achievable potential of Zone J. Therefore, Zone K potential would be 226 MW. Estimating Westchester County at half the maximum achievable potential of Zone K, its potential in 2007 would be 113 MW. Adding these up across all three zones equals 842 MW by 2007. Again, using the data from residential and commercial economic potential from the Appendix in NYSERDA’s 2003 report, we can see estimates for Zones J and K for 2007, 2012, and 2022. Plotting these estimates, one can interpolate the “missing years” of 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2015. Assuming a linear relationship, the maximum achievable potential for Zone J would be 502 MW in 2007, 529 MW in 2008, 563 MW in 2010, 624 MW in 2013, and 658 MW in 2015. Assuming the same relationship in the above paragraph between Zone J and Zone K (Zone K is 0.451 the size of Zone J), the potential for Zone K would be 239 MW in 2008, 253 MW in 2010, 281 MW in 2013, and 297 MW in 2015. Assuming Zone I is half the size of Zone K, potential for Zone I would be 119 MW in 2008, 127 MW in 2010, 140 MW in 2013, and 148 MW in 2015.
This “lowest” estimate included adjustments for climate, forecast uncertainties, and consumptive patterns.
See NYSERDA (2004), “New York Energy $mart Program Cost-Effectiveness Assessment,” submitted by Heschong Mahone Group, p. 1.
An updated program evaluation report (Heschong Mahone Group 2005) evaluated the Peak Load Reduction and Enabling Technologies Programs together. It estimates peak reductions of 178 MW (p. 25), costs of $28.8 million (Table 3-9, p. 24), for a cost per peak reduction of $163/KW.
See NYSERDA (2004), “New York Energy $mart Program Cost-Effectiveness Assessment,” submitted by Heschong Mahone Group, p. 34.
An updated program evaluation report (Heschong Mahone Group 2005) estimates peak reductions of 19.7 MW (Table 3-1, p. 16), costs of $18.4 million (Table 1-3, p. 4), for a cost per peak reduction of $934/KW.
There is evidence that solar PV costs have increased in recent years in the USA because of a firming of the silicon market and increased demand stimulated by various subsidies and renewable portfolio standards.
References
Brown, M. A., Southworth, F., & Stovall, T. K. (2005). Towards a climate-friendly built environment. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/.
Brown, M. A., Sovacool, B. K., & Hirsh, R. (2006). Assessing U.S. energy policy. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 135(3), 5–11 (Summer).
California Public Utility Commission (California PUC), (2006). California Solar Incentive Program. Available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/energy/051214_solarincentive.htm.
Casten, T. R., & Ayres, R. U. (2007). Energy myth eight – Worldwide power systems are economically and environmentally optimal. In B. K. Sovacool, & M. A. Brown (Eds.) Energy and American society – Thirteen myths (pp. 201–238). New York: Springer.
Fazio, J. (2003). Global warming: Temperature, streamflows and the power system. Northwest Power Planning Council (Powerpoint presentation).
Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Palmer, K. (2004). Retrospective review of demand-side energy efficiency policies. Washington, DC: National Commission on Energy Policy.
Goldman, C., Hopper, N., Bharvirkar, R., Neenan, B., Boisvert, R., Cappers, P., et al. (2005). Customer strategies for responding to day-ahead market hourly electricity pricing. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL-57128).
Goodstein, E., & Matson, L. (2004). Climate change in the Pacific Northwest: Valuing snowpack loss for agriculture and salmon. In J. Erickson, & J. Gowdy (Eds.) Frontiers in environmental valuation and policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Gupta, A., & Plunkett, J. (2004). State of New York public service commission. In Proceeding on the Motion of the Commission as to the Rates, Charges, Rules and Regulations of Consolidated Edison Company of New York for Electric Service. December 15.
Heschong Mahone Group, (2005). New York Energy Smart Program cost-effectiveness assessment. Prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Ikki, O. (2005). PV Activities in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: RTS Corporation, May.
International Energy Agency, (2003). Investment in the coal industry. Available at: http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_key_result.asp?keys=4101.
International Energy Agency, (2004). World energy outlook. Availabel at: http://www.euroheat.org/documents/Conference2006Presentations/1.%20Nguyen.ppt.
Kirby, B., Goldman, C., Hefner, G., & Kintner-Meyer, M. (2005). Load participation in reserves markets: Experiences in U.S. and internationally, Oct.
Komanoff, C. (2002). Securing power through energy conservation and efficiency in New York: Profiting from California’s experience (pp. 1–22). Report for the Pace Law School Energy Project and the Natural Resources Defense Council, May.
Lovins, A. B. (2007). Energy myth nine – Energy efficiency improgements have already reached their potential. In B. K. Sovacool, & M. A. Brown (Eds.) Energy and American society – Thirteen myths (pp. 239–264). New York: Springer.
Morgan, G., Apt, J., & Lave, L. (2005). The U.S. electric power sector and climate change mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. June, 2005, available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/electricity/index.cfm.
Nadel, S., Shipley, A., & Neal Elliott, R. (2004). The Technical, economic and achievable potential for energy efficiency in the U.S.: A meta-analysis of recent studies. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (pp. 8.215–8.226).
National Academies (2006). Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for meeting New York electric power needs. Washington, DC: National Academies Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog/11666.html.
National Commission on Energy Policy, (2006). Siting critical energy infrastructure: An overview of needs and challenges. Available at: http://www.energycommission.org (accessed 3 September 2006).
New York Independent System Operator, (2005). Comprehensive reliability planning process draft reliability needs assessment. Available at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2005/rna_final12212005.pdf.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), (2002a). 2002 state energy plan and final environmental impact statement (Energy Plan). June, available at: http://text.nyserda.org/Energy_Information/energy_state_plan.asp (accessed 17 November 2007).
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, (2002b). Combined heat and power, market potential for New York State, NYSERDA Final Report 02-12 (October), available at: http://www.nyserda.org/programs/dgchp.asp (accessed 19 November 2007).
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, (2003). Energy efficiency and renewable energy resource development potential in New York State. Final Report, available at http://www.nyserda.org/energy_Information/otherdocs.asp#EERER (accessed 17 November 2007), August.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, (2004). New York Energy $mart Program cost-effectiveness assessment. Heschong Mahone Group.
Palmer, R., & Hahn, M. (2002). The impacts of climate change on Portland’s water supply. Portland, Oregon: Portland Water Bureau.
Perez, R. et al. (2004). Solar energy security. REFocus (July/August), 24–29.
Rufo, M., & Coito, F. (2002). California’s secret energy surplus: The potential for energy efficiency. San Francisco: The Energy Foundation Available at: http://www.ef.org/news_reports.cfm?program=viewall&sort=creationdate.
Sobin, R. (2007). Energy myth seven – Renewable energy systems could never meet growing electricity demand in America. In B. K. Sovacool, & M. A. Brown (Eds.) Energy and American Society – Thirteen myths (pp. 171–200). New York: Springer.
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) (2004). Our solar power future: The U.S. photovoltaic industry roadmap through 2030 and beyond. Washington, DC: Solar Energy Industries Association.
Sovacool, B. K. (2005). Think again: Nuclear power. Foreign Policy, 150. Available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3250&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com, September.
Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (Eds.) (2007). In Energy and American society – Thirteen myths. New York: Springer.
Sovacool, B. K., & Hirsh, R. F. (2007). Energy myth six: The barriers to new and innovative energy technologies are primarily technical: the case of distributed generation (DG). In B. K. Sovacool, & M. A. Brown (Eds.) Energy and American society – Thirteen myths (pp. 145–169). New York: Springer.
Tennessee Valley Authority, (2005). Firm power. Available at: http://www.tvaed.com/pdf/firm_power.pdf.
US Energy Information Administration (2006). International energy outlook 2006. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA-0484, June).
US Energy Information Administration (2007). Annual energy outlook 2007. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA-0383, February).
US Global Climate Change Research Program, (2004). U.S. National Assessment of potential consequences of climate variability and change: Regional paper, Pacific Northwest. Available at: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/pnw/pnw-edu-3.htm.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the numerous useful comments provided by Alan Crane of the NRC staff, Lawrence Papay (Chair of the NRC Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs), and Sam Fleming, Parker Mathusa, Peter Bradford, and Alex Farrell (NRC Committee members who contributed to the demand-side analysis coordinated by Marilyn Brown). In addition, we are particularly grateful to Dan Reicher, Google.org’s Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives, and Dan Arvizu, Director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and their staff for helping to develop the accelerated CHP and photovoltaics scenarios for the Indian Point service territory. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the commissioned work from two contractors. General Electric International modeled the New York electric system, and Optimal Energy estimated the efficiency improvements that could be made in New York City based on a statewide assessment. The authors alone are responsible for any errors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, M.A., Sovacool, B.K. Promoting a level playing field for energy options: electricity alternatives and the case of the Indian Point Energy Center. Energy Efficiency 1, 35–48 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-007-9002-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-007-9002-6