Skip to main content

NEI Energy Markets Report (February 12th - 16th)

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity prices were mixed to decreasing throughout the country last week (see pages 1 & 2). Gas prices rose at the Henry Hub $0.06 to $8.32 / MMBtu (see page 4). According to Ux Consulting, uranium spot prices jumped $10 to $85 / lb U3O8 last week.

Nuclear plant capacity availability was 96% last week as three reactors were down for maintenance and two reactors were down for refueling outages (see pages 2 & 3).

The Electric Power Research Institute released a study last week detailing how to reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. over the next 25-30 years. Among the seven technologies recommended was nuclear power which was targeted to build 64 GWe by 2030. For more information on the study go to

For the podcast click here. For the report click here (pdf). It is also located on NEI's Nuclear Statistics webpage.


gunter said…

Did you note that the IAEA released its new radiation symbol today?

Google "new radiation symbol" AND "IAEA" to see.

Gee, its a skull and cross bones obviously from being too close to an eminating source and a warning not to stay in this area.

gunter, nirs
David Bradish said…
The symbol looks like it should do the trick. All in the name of public safety.
Anonymous said…
Actually, if you read the story, the new symbol isn't meant for general public use but for labeling the source container internal to the device.

From the IAEA website (

"The symbol is intended for IAEA Category 1, 2 and 3 sources defined as dangerous sources capable of death or serious injury, including food irradiators, teletherapy machines for cancer treatment and industrial radiography units. The symbol is to be placed on the device housing the source, as a warning not to dismantle the device or to get any closer. It will not be visible under normal use, only if someone attempts to disassemble the device. The symbol will not be located on building access doors, transportation packages or containers."

My question for you, Mr. Gunter, is why are you degrading the IAEA's actions to provide an additional layer of protection for the public against radiation hazards? Were you critical of the Mr. Yuk stickers that came out in the 1970's as a replacement for the traditional skull-and-crossbones warning label for poisonous substances?

I thought the NIRS was supposed to be concerned with public safety and thus logically would be supportive of any sign or symbol that would help warn the public especially if they know little to nothing about nuclear science or technology.

Instead your comments above and previously on this blog appear more aimed at degrading and destroying nuclear science and technology through fear-mongering and public hysteria than at promoting their safe and judicious use. Why is that?
Paul Primavera said…
Paul Gunter's friend Ray Shadis of the New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution made similar comments regarding the new IAEA sign. As someone pointed out at Yahoo's Know_Nukes forum"

"Future civilizations that encounter the symbol may think: 'Rays from mysterious floating orb bring the dead back to life'"

Something to ponder.

And of course, Ray had to respond in the same fashion as Gunter with:

"Kinda like the nuclear renaissance ?"

To which the only proper reply is:

It seems that for a dead industry, resurrection has already happened - and before Lent, too! Please note the good news regarding your alma mater - Vermont Yankee! Hee, hee, hee, hee!;

World nuclear generation sets record in 2006

Washington (Platts)--14Feb2007

World nuclear operators appear to have set a record in 2006 for total generation. Led by notably improved output in Canada, Japan and Russia and sustained performance in the US, South Korea, and France, overall generation is likely to exceed 2.87 billion gross megawatt-hours, according to a Platts' Nucleonics Week analysis. The figure in 2005 was 2.77 billion MWh. The US 2006 output of nearly 823 million gross MWh was above 2005's 818 million MWh, but fell short of the 2004 US record of 828 million MWh; the average US capacity factor was just under 90%. Canada's reactors put out 6.2% more MWh in 2006 than in 2005, and Russia's operators got 5.3% more power, about 9 million MWh, from their stations. Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie-1 and Entergy's Vermont Yankee turned in the world's best capacity factors, each above 102%, and the largest output came from E.On's 1,475-MW Isar-2, at 12,442,254 MWh. Full details and tables are in the February 15 Nucleonics Week.
gunter said…
Geez guys, I was only offering a piece of interesting new news that didnt get posted.

Who's knocking it?

Where are all your hormesis comments? This symbol does'nt seem too supportive of "a little dab will do ya."

gunter, nirs

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…