Skip to main content

S&P's Epiphany

Standard and Poors just came out with a report titled "Why U.S. Utilities Are Seeing Nuclear Power In A New Light" (subscription required for actual report). The report read more like "Why S&P is Seeing Nuclear Power In A New Light.

After looking at the report, it appeared S&P had an epiphany in which they are finally understanding how much the industry has changed over the years. They recognized the new licensing framework for new plants, who the nuclear players are, what technologies we are looking at building, the costs associated and the credit implications. What's great about the report is that S&P used almost of their information from NEI's 2006 Status Report (pdf).

S&P still has much of their same reservations about the costs to build a new plant but it's great to finally see them keeping up with what's going on in the nuclear industry.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Can you explain this "epiphany" a little better?

This appears to be a rehash of the now year old January 9, 2006 S&P report "Credit Aspects of Nuclear Power for North America and Europe." Aside from the addition of all the chaff, nothing has really changed from the central issue being that introducing the financial risks from more nuclear power to a business profile jeporadizes credit ratings.

Nuclear waste remains the same question that it has for more than a half century. If anything, the licensing and opening of Yucca Mt. is ever more remote and more nuclear power means more nuclear waste with a questionable future.

With the distinct possibility that EPACT 2006 appropriations for new nukes will be whittled down under a fiscally conservative Congress it doesnt seem like Wall Street will be getting bullish on new atomic power any time soon.

And given the "deja vu all over again" that is occuring in Finland with EPR cost overruns and delays as elsewhere, I'd venture they are "keeping up" on industry intentions more out of concern for the electric utility business sector being sucked into the same old quagmire than anything else.

Gunter, NIRS
David Bradish said…
I was wondering if you would ever comment on this post.

Well, first they seem to finally understand the "New Licensing Framework" as mentioned on page 1 of the report.

"The new licensing framework aims to assure potential investors that their investment in a new nuclear plant will not be jeopardized as long as the design and construction adhere to the initial set of standards agreed by the parties involved and the NRC."

Most of the delays in the past were due to the regulatory framework and if all goes well in the new process then much of the risk is taken away for the construction of the plant.

Second, they are very specific on the types and costs of each nuclear technology and appear to understand what is being built. (pages 4-7) Many think that all nukes are the same but they are not and S&P knows that here.

And third, "Standard & Poor's does not anticipate construction of new nuclear plants to start in the next few years." (p. 8) Well duh, considering that the chart on page 3 shows that a plant won't start construction until about 3-4 years after a company files an application. And no one has done so yet. It seems like they figured that out all on their own.

But it's great they are taking the time to understand what's going on in the industry. The more they know, the better for the industry.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin