tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post3334101279559728147..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Round Two on Debating Craig Severance’s New Nuclear Cost AnalysisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-5538594252584407052009-08-25T16:00:59.769-04:002009-08-25T16:00:59.769-04:00Jack and Jeremy:
I believe that the anti-nuclear ...Jack and Jeremy:<br /><br />I believe that the anti-nuclear organizations are grasping at the cost issue because it has the potential for bringing back bad memories in some very active political constituencies. For a wide variety of reasons, including imposed delays and extremely high interest rates, many of the most recently built nuclear power plants came on line at costs that far exceeded their initial estimates. <br /><br />Because nearly all of them were built by rate regulated utilities that were allowed to earn a politically determined rate of return on their prudently invested capital - once it was allowed into the rate base - nearly every plant completion resulted in an electric power rate increase blamed on "expensive" nuclear power.<br /><br />In today's electric power market, there are still a number of jurisdictions where the same risk is in play today. Despite what any of us might like to imagine about the free market, the normal rules simply do not apply to legal monopolies like electric power utilities in rate regulated states.<br /><br />I believe very strongly that the utility decision makers have learned far more from the experiences of the First Atomic Age than the opposition did. They are taking prudent steps to make sure they have complete designs, complete approval to build and operate, and well trained work forces that will not make construction errors that require massive amounts of rework (I expect some rework, but not anywhere near as much as occurred in the 1980s). I also expect that David is right - the published numbers are conservatively estimated and included significant contingencies.<br /><br />For me, the key is that many of the PUCs are reviewing the analysis and agreeing with the utilities - nuclear may be "expensive" but it beat all other competing sources.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-30723930911892021742009-08-25T11:37:26.746-04:002009-08-25T11:37:26.746-04:00I'm always surprised by the number of self-app...I'm always surprised by the number of self-appointed financial analysts in the nuclear world that spend their own money and time to donate uncalled for advice to private companies. <br /><br />If a company is spending a fortune on a power plant with a risk of falling flat on its face the answer is simple: keep your opinions to yourself and hurry up and invest in its competitor.Jeremynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1054729394073972382009-08-25T10:57:01.665-04:002009-08-25T10:57:01.665-04:00While this discussion is interesting, that we have...While this discussion is interesting, that we have it in relation to public policy decisions demonstrates the flaw in our approach to energy policy. The expense of a project should have nothing to do how that project is treated by policy makers. These should be decisions made in the market place. If investors want to build a nuclear plant (or windmills or a coal plant or anything else) they should look at all of the variables and make a decision. Using cost as an argument to or not to build nukes allows opponents to stop progress by either advancing policies that drive cost higher or to argue that prices are higher than they actual would be. And that is exactly what is happening with nuclear energy.Jack Spencernoreply@blogger.com