Skip to main content

RBC Capital Markets Energy Survey

By
From a just-released survey conducted by RBC Capital Markets,
Americans' NIMBY "Not In My Backyard" syndrome also appears to be waning. Only 16 per cent of Americans said that they would oppose the construction of any type of energy plant or facility in their hometown, down from 23 per cent in 2007. Seventy-one per cent of Americans said they would support an alternative-energy system in their hometown, including a wind or solar facility, up from 58 per cent last year; 34 per cent would support a clean coal technology plant (up from 27 per cent last year); 32 per cent would support a liquefied natural gas facility (up from 25 per cent last year); and 21 per cent would support a nuclear power plant (up from 17 per cent). Nevertheless, the survey found that although a majority of Americans attribute the rapid rise in gas prices to a lack of oil refining capacity in the U.S., eight out of 10 said they oppose the construction of an oil refinery in their hometown.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why is the 17% expression of support for a local nuclear power plant so much lower than the figures consistently appearing in the Bisconti Research surveys conducted for NEI? IIRC, they're usually in the 60-70% range, but I haven't seen any for a while.
June 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM
David Bradish said…
It looks like it all depends on how the survey questions are asked. The RBC survey appears to ask which sources you most favor building. Whereas Bisconti's survey asks specifically if you favor building nuclear plants or not.
June 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous said…
...of course. Wasn't Ms. Bisconti a NEI vip in communications before going into the "polling" business?


Try polling our mailing list and see what you would come up.

I'm more impressed by the June 2, 2008 report from Moody's investor services where again we read that a utility's credit is projected to go down the toilet by building new nukes.

The report says a construction announcement can bring a 25% to 30% deterioration in the builder's credit rating.

Moody's is now projecting construction costs potentially
exceeding $7,000 per installed kilowatt, (that's up $1000-$2000 /kw from their Oct. 2007 report.

You must figure the sky is the limit if you have the US taxpayer on the hook for covering defaults. But that can quickly change.

The report adds that utilities should not rely on federal loan guarantees in because that program's "form and substance" will be "subject to a material amount of political influence" into the future.
June 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM
David Bradish said…
And what did the last paragraph on page 16 of the Moody's report say? I'll refresh your memory, here it is:

"The credit implications associated with pending climate change legislation are beyond the scope of this Special Comment. Nevertheless, Moody’s observes that nuclear power appears to represent the most compelling large-scale base load and emissions-friendly supply alternative. We acknowledge that the illustrative scenarios discussed in this report do not incorporate the potential economics associated with carbon / greenhouse gas emission regulations, a material simplifying assumption but one that could have a significant positive impact on the economic prospects for new nuclear generation. In our opinion, if federal and state governments are serious about reducing carbon emissions, new nuclear power will be part of the solution."
June 3, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more