BLOG.ENERGYECONOMYONLINE.COM: Recent Comments

Comment on "Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute

Website Development in London — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:45:30 GMT

Nice post,
This is a very interesting discussion with nuclear energy institute,And thanks for explaining why it is not competitive,
Keep up the good work

Comment on San Antonio: New Economy Leader or Nuclear Guinea Pig?

James Mason — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:25:11 GMT

Upon listening to the presentations, it is clear that San Antonio is moving too fast approving the South Texas Nuclear project and need to perform a "due diligence" review.

Comment on Solar You Can Count On

Renewable Electricity — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:16:45 GMT

Thanks for sharing this useful information.

Comment on Nuclear Costs: Who Has "Better Numbers"?

David Bradish — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:56:41 GMT

Here's NEI's response to this post. Thanks for your patience.

David Bradish

<c.s.> The Nuclear Energy Institute has above posted a response, to my response, to their response, all in follow-up to our live debate in Washington on July 10th. I can see why NEI wanted to hash it out a little more, but I agree with David in his new post that we are now drifting "into the weeds".

The only thing I think NEI raises in its new post that needs any further response (all else has been well explained in my prior posts, if read thoroughly) is the notion of who is or is not putting up their own money. I do not mean that utilities are unwilling to put up their own money -- rather the nuclear industry is promoting optimistic cost projections and is unwilling to stand behind those estimates. The very substantial risks of cost overruns are borne by ratepayers, taxpayers, and utility shareholders.

Comment on "Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute

Craig Severance — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:05:57 GMT

My response article has now been published and is here:

http://energyeconomyonline.com/NEI_Debate_Continues_.html

This is a good opportunity for readers to see both sides of the nuclear debate spelled out. Go to the Blog Page if you wish to post any Comments.

Comment on "Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute

David Bradish — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:20:46 GMT

If anyone would like to read a critique of Mr. Severance's paper, click here. Thanks

David Bradish, NEI

[C.S.}: David is upset with me for missing his Comment till now. Yes, I am traveling, had to drive my wife over to Denver last night for some medical appts today. Not a good idea to use e-mail or computer while driving 70 mph down mountain highways at night. Actually went to a Starbucks this a.m. (Brighton, CO) that does NOT have wi-fi!

David's commentary is a welcome sign -- we are reaching the point I hoped for when I published my Study in January, that we could break open the "black box" of nuclear cost projections.. It is NOT a cordial discussion when one side won't disclose its numbers -- the state the nuclear industry was heading before I published my Study. Now, I think we can have some good discussions about what numbers are being used, and "whose numbers are better". David feels from his review that nuclear industry is justified assuming that cost inflation trends are now over.

I will post an article responding to David's article soon. For now I do encourage readers to review David's article. He is spelling out NEI's position on why he feels their numbers are better.

Comment on "Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute

James Mason — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:34:40 GMT

In my previous comment, I stated that a decimal place was missed in the natural gas graph. On second reading I realize that the graph is correct. The natural gas graph is for supply not production. My mistake, sorry.

Comment on "Lively Discussion" With Nuclear Energy Institute

James Mason — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:26:32 GMT

Excellent article. Craig's estimates of new nuclear plants are on the mark. The nuclear plant under construction (fourth year) in Finland is experiencing large cost over-runs and the New York Times states that the final cost will be in excess of $6,000 per kW. And in May 2009, FERC Chairman Wellinghoff was quoted in a New York Times article that the next nuclear plant will cost over $7,000 per kW.

As Craig demonstrates in his presentation, overnight construction costs are just the beginning of the story for a project that takes ten or more years to complete since financing costs over the long construction period have to be taken into account.

Craig, I believe a decimal place was missed in the natural gas production chart. Current U.S. natural gas production is in the 19 to 20 trillion cubic foot range.