John Rowe: "My Last Nuclear Speech" - August 15, 2011

[bananas]

RIP nuclear energy.

Delivered to the American Nuclear Society on August 15, 2011.
pdf of prepared remarks: http://www.exeloncorp.com/assets/newsroom/speeches/docs/spch_Rowe_ANS_110815.pdf

The Atomic Priesthood is having a hard time facing reality...

Grinding and gnashing of teeth at the American Nuclear Society: http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/08/21/66th-carnival-of-nuclear-energy-bloggers/

Review of John Rowe’s Keynote Speech at ANS Utility Working Conference
http://www.4factorconsulting.com/energy-industry/review-of-john-rowe%E2%80%99s-keynote-speech-at-ans-utility-working-conference

World Nuclear News: Economics hinder US new build
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=30570

[bananas]

1. Pro-nuke heads are exploding

http://neversleepsagain.blogspot.com/2010/09/busy-busy-bee.html

I rented Scanners(1981) not really knowing much about the movie. My bad, I didn't realize how completely awesome it would be. The story was interesting the acting was over the top but in the good way. And is it just me or does villain Daryl look kinda like Jack Nicholson ? I enjoyed some good laughs and some awesome graphics. I mean seriously a head exploded, need I say more? In fact let's take a look at that awesomeness...

[Throckmorton]

2. My head didn't explode

All he did was publicly state what many of us in the industry have said for decades.
I make metaphorical buggy whips for a living, and I've known that for years.
Do they still make buggy whips, sure do.
Is it a growth industry, nope.
Do we really need them, will I guess if you own a buggy you do.

No amount of stamping my feet and pounding my fists will change that. I have heard quotes of over 380 million in Fukushima Retrofits in our fleet of 7 reactors alone. But thats really just a guess, as the actual decisions on what needs to be done are at least a year away.

[bananas]

6. Yup - that's where I heard it

from people in the industry, decades ago.

[kristopher]

4. Wouldn't that be more like ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XngQJzAmVm8&feature=player_embedded

[kristopher]

3. Thanks.

K&R but the nuclear (un)reccing crew is hard at work and it's still zero.

[kristopher]

5. I was howling with laughter at what that idiot Rod Adams wrote ...

I was howling with laughter at what that idiot Rod Adams wrote as a criticism of Rowe's remarks:
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/08/is-rowe-right-will-natural-gas-remain-cheap-for-10-20-years.html

"He is also willing to allow the state of New Jersey to force another 620 MWe from the Oyster Creek nuclear plant off of the grid in the relatively near future. He has repeatedly told his investors that high gas prices are good for Exelon because the company leaders have skillfully maneuvered to be in a position where the selling price for their output is driven by the “last-in” generator. They profit most when that generator is burning natural gas. The higher the price of gas, the higher the selling price for the output of Exelon plants and the higher their profit margins. Their generating costs do not change when the price of gas goes up.
...
In my fantasy world, there will be visionary leaders who recognize that cheap atomic electricity enables other economic benefits that will drive up the market demand for clean electricity high enough so that even some power suppliers can benefit. In my evaluation, a large part of the downward spiral of the American economy can be traced to the notion – agreed to by certain ideologically driven people AND certain energy suppliers – that continued dependence on high-priced fossil fuel energy is better than allowing cheap atomic energy to flourish.

Adams clearly doesn't know the first thing about how energy is bought and sold. Seriously, his ignorance is staggering for a self-proclaimed expert that runs his mouth as much as he does. The energy market is structured by time with the bulk of "baseload" electricity sold via contracts that lock in prices for months and years in advance. To fill in the gaps for peaking power that aren't covered by longer term contracts there are markets where short term needs are met via a bidding system where a "day-ahead" or "hour ahead" needs are broadcast to energy generating owners. They reply with bids stating how much of the need they can meet and at what price. The lowest priced blocks are accepted first until the need is covered with gradually more expensive electricity. When the need is met, the last price bid is the price paid to all bidders.

Bids into this system are usually based on the cost of fuel for the various providers. This apparently gives nuclear a window of opportunity for selling some of its output that isn't allocated to long term contracts.

The spiel by Adams shows him to be a complete moron - as if there was any lingering doubt.

[FBaggins]

7. "The spiel by Adams shows him to be a complete moron - as if there was any lingering doubt."

The term you'll want to look up now is "locational marginal pricing"

Then you'll want to be more careful before calling anyone else a "moron". :rofl:

[kristopher]

8. ROFLMAO - Are YOU Rod Adams?

That's a rhetorical question, btw, that doesn't require an answer.

LMP has absolutely nothing to do with the comments Adams made. It is likely that HE would think it is somehow related though.

The moron is clearly describing the hour ahead/day ahead market and then talking as if Rowe designed that market just to make nuclear profit from high natural gas prices:

"He has repeatedly told his investors that high gas prices are good for Exelon because the company leaders have skillfully maneuvered to be in a position where the selling price for their output is driven by the “last-in” generator. They profit most when that generator is burning natural gas. The higher the price of gas, the higher the selling price for the output of Exelon plants and the higher their profit margins. Their generating costs do not change when the price of gas goes up." - R. Adams

My reply

Adams clearly doesn't know the first thing about how energy is bought and sold. Seriously, his ignorance is staggering for a self-proclaimed expert that runs his mouth as much as he does. The energy market is structured by time with the bulk of "baseload" electricity sold via contracts that lock in prices for months and years in advance. To fill in the gaps for peaking power that aren't covered by longer term contracts there are markets where short term needs are met via a bidding system where a "day-ahead" or "hour ahead" needs are broadcast to energy generating owners. They reply with bids stating how much of the need they can meet and at what price. The lowest priced blocks are accepted first until the need is covered with gradually more expensive electricity. When the need is met, the last price bid is the price paid to all bidders.

Bids into this system are usually based on the cost of fuel for the various providers. This apparently gives nuclear a window of opportunity for selling some of its output that isn't allocated to long term contracts.

The spiel by Adams shows him to be a complete moron - as if there was any lingering doubt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=308561&mesg_id=308665

So to repeat yet again - Your objection is nothing but an attempt to divert from the fact that solar power production can EASILY dwarf nuclear energy's potential because solar actually does what nuclear can only falsely claim to do - harness the benefits of mass production and capture the full value of economies of scale.

With 50 GW we are adding the equivalent production of 12-13 nuclear plants every year.
With 100GW we are adding the equivalent production of 25 or so nuclear plants every year.
And with 500GW we are adding the equivalent production of 120-130 nuclear plants each and every year.

in its wildest dreams nuclear power can't begin to approach that capability.

[FBaggins]

9. You're nuts if you think LMP has nothing to do with his comments.

The comments you highlighted virtually define LMP.

It was your response that was in error and reflected "doesn't know the first thing about how energy is bought and sold".

Not all generating companies sell their power on long-term futures contracts. That's a business decision. It's understandable why you don't know this because many of the companies you're interested in (solar/wind) have to have long-term contracts in order to exist. But that isn't how every company does it. Some sell shorter term and then hedge againt fuel price changes. Some hedge less and gamble more.

Exelon (at least at that time) sold the bulk of their power in much the way that's described in that piece. They didn't (as I you claim) "design" the market, but they did design their strategy withint that market in such a way that (because of LMP) they made more profits because the last-in generation was higher prices peaking natural gas and gas was much more expensive. If you actually read the CEO's comments (particularly if, as I have, you read some of his quarterly earnings calls) he's says the same thing.

[kristopher]

10. OK, explain clearly and in detail how LMP underpins Rowe's strategy.

[kristopher]

11. We're waiting.

You've posted two threads on EE since I asked for your explanation but not a peep on this one...