LQD - GE CEO: nuclear uncompetitive against wind without subsidies | 14 comments (14 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

from another article:

US utilities sceptical over nuclear plants
"If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind," Mr Immelt says. "You would say [they are] easier to site, digestible today [and] I don't have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming."
The US government has tried to win over nervous utilities by combining what were two separate licensing processes for building and operating nuclear plants.
NRG Energy is seeking a single licence to build and operate, which may take four years. Under the old system, the process could take 11 years. It was possible for a power company to get a licence to build a plant but then fail to obtain approval to operate it, after pouring billions of dollars into construction. Many in the industry recall a $5.3bn New York plant that, once completed in 1984, could not overcome public resistance and be brought on stream.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 19th, 2007 at 01:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A better quote (4.00 / 2)

This is the way I see it too.

A reactor is just a too big an investment for most companies in a deregulated market. Screw it up and the entire company might go down the drain. It's even worse as you don't have to screw it up for it too fail. Things far out of your control, like gas prices, might destroy your business.

The modularity of wind and gas (you can't build 200 MW of nuclear) is a great competitive edge as long as the State refuse to regulate the market. Even if nuclear might produce cheaper power than wind or gas on a per kWh basis.

With a carbon tax or cap, the nuclear investment becomes more profitable, making the higher risks more worthwhile. So would loan guarantees. But what's really needed is either a reregulated power market or loan guarantees, or preferably both.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Nov 19th, 2007 at 09:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A better quote (none / 1)

What's also interesting is that Energy secretary Bodman was complaining that only 30 new US reactors were being planned. He said something on the lines of "we don't need 30 new reactors, we need 130 or 230."

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Nov 19th, 2007 at 09:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LQD - GE CEO: nuclear uncompetitive against wind without subsidies | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Bidenomics made real

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - October 2024

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Recent Diaries

Starmer's Government Complicit In Gaza Genocide

Todd: The Disappearance of US Hegemony

Biden Willingly Entrapped by Netanyahu

Final Joint US-IL Assault On Iran

Hate Preachers Wilders-Ben Gvir-Smotrich

German Industrial Weakness in Charts

Gaza Massacre One Year On

America's Revenge On the Islamic State of Iran

Post Neoconic Wars, Hypocrisy Thrives In the West

Aysenur's Death a Targeted Murder by IDF

3rd Day Rutte Next Stop Moscow

1st Day on the Job - Mark Rutte

Harsh Lesson On Humanitarian Law and Israel

Bidenomics made real

Picking Targets in Iran :: CNN, Media Cheerleading

October 2024

Biden Collusion w Netanyahu Leads to Armageddon

Is Southern Lebanon Part of Eretz Yisrael?

Judaism: Tikun Olam for a Better World

IL Not A Democracy, Ruled by Fanatics

Occasional Series