Skip to main content

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.

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.
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."

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Huh?

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…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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…