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...
From a just-released survey conducted by RBC Capital Markets,
Comments
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.
"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."