Monday, June 02, 2008

RBC Capital Markets Energy Survey

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.


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.

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.

gunter 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.

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."