Update On Nuclear Power – Constellation Drops Out

Back when the US government selected 4 companies who might lead the nuclear power “renaissance” in 2009 I wrote this article and noted that of the four:

Southern Company was a good candidate since they have nuclear experience and a substantial market capitalization
SCANA (South Carolina)is a relatively small company, but since South Carolina has the “traditional” regulatory structure where companies can pass the cost of construction on to customers, this might work, although it would put the company at extreme risk of foundering if costs rise
NRG is a smaller independent power company that was unlikely to be able to finance such a large venture and unwilling to take the financial pounding that will likely ensue as the projects face difficulties
Constellation Energy (Baltimore) was a wounded company and unlikely to succeed, even with a partner in the vast French nuclear company EDF

I said that of the four companies, 1 1/2 (Southern plus SCANA, on a shoestring) might be able to pull it off.  I also said that it boded ill for this false “renaissance” that Exelon, the largest nuclear operator in the USA and one of the largest in terms of market capitalization, was bowing out of this effort, likely because they ran the numbers and risks and decided that it was foolhardy.

In this post I noted that NRG had a falling out with their nuclear effort, and according to this recent presentation, they have reduced their spend to a maximum of $1.5M a month, which is literally a pittance in a multi-billion dollar effort, dumping the rest of the work onto their partners and Toshiba.  Effectively naming NRG was a joke in the first place, as I pointed out in my original post, and now they are abandoning the giant capital efforts of nuclear plant construction and moving onto other areas to earn profits.

Today the other shoe dropped – as summarized in this excellent Bloomberg article titled “Constellation Drops Maryland Nuclear Plant Loan, Denting EDF’s U.S. Plans“:

Constellation Energy Group Inc. pulled out of negotiations on a U.S. loan guarantee to build a nuclear reactor in Maryland with Electricite de France SA, potentially damaging the French utility’s U.S. expansion plans and the companies’ partnership.The cost of a $7.5 billion U.S. government loan guarantee that the companies’ joint venture, UniStar Nuclear Energy, would need to build the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor is too high and creates too much risk for Constellation, the Baltimore-based utility said in a statement today.

So now Constellation has dropped out, I am batting a thousand so far, since at $1.5M / month NRG has also effectively abandoned the effort.

As far as the 1/2 company, I have been following SCANA’s efforts through their web site, which contains extremely useful information.  Since the rate-payers are on the hook for this effort (SCANA has “traditional” rate regulation), SCANA publishes detailed information on a regular basis so that the regulators can measure progress.  This document is a Q2 2010 update on their 2 units under construction and is excellent reading if you wish to learn more about nuclear plant construction.  Some relevant facts:

– at a stock price of about $40 / share, SCANA has a market value a bit above $5B
– the estimated cost of building two nuclear units as of their most recent estimates is about $6B
– scheduled completion dates for Units 2 & 3 are April 1, 2016 and January 1, 2019
– SCANA is planning on spending approximately $500M on these two units in 2010

It will be a high-wire act to see if SCANA can pull this effort off with their small market capitalization relative the potential risks on this construction effort.  Delays in the schedule or cost over-runs will pose a significant risk to their liquidity and South Carolina is a relatively small state if they need to rely on support.  That is why I still give SCANA a 1/2 as far as the 4 companies listed above – they have a shot and are certainly making the most of it but they are a LONG way from the finish line and any significant deviation will dent their capitalization significantly.  For example when the company has $5B sunk into the project, if the date is delayed the company will not only have to keep financing that $5B in debt but they will have to purchase replacement power to make up for the nuclear power that isn’t yet on line, dealing them a double blow.

Southern is still moving forward with their construction and of the 4 they, and Exelon, were the only 2 companies in the US with the level of experience, commitment and financial capacity to pull this off, if they chose to do so.  I will update you on Southern’s construction efforts in a future post.

But it amazes me that what I, a non-journalist who is several years removed from direct experience with the industry, could call immediately when the government named these companies and how I have been completely correct so far.  The nuclear renaissance is about to be buried, with only Southern soldiering on and South Carolina holding their breath (if they are smart) to bet that SCANA can pull this off or they will be stuck holding an immense debt and be short of power, to boot.  Given the 100% rate of overruns in nuclear plants and dates being missed by years (if not decades), SCANA’s high wire act is going to be tough to pull off, but I wish them luck.

Cross posted at LITGM

Drawing the Fires

The EPA has drafted a new set of regulations for emissions from industrial boilers, via imposition of “Maximum Achievable Control Technology.” The National Association of Manufacturers has raised serious concerns about the advisability of imposing these regulations, particularly at this point in time: a very detailed analysis is here

Industrial boiler regulation may sound like a pretty esoteric topic, but actually I think it is an important one, both in terms of tangible impact on the economy and in terms of what it symbolizes about the way we are heading as a society.

Read more

VAT Tax Redux, New Proposal, and Barone’s piece in SF Examiner

This lonnnnng post was prompted by an email linking Michael Barone’s latest SF Examiner piece, which asks Republicans “Now what?” after assuming some strong gains in November.  I have a few ideas on the “now what?” question, and I can’t think of a better place to post them than on this excellent blog.

First, I can’t thank you all enough for the excellent commentary and critiques on my recent “Swapping a VAT for failing income tax is Good Policy” post a week or so ago.  I’ve commented on many of your ideas, and I think you’ve changed my mind on a thing or two, which you will notice below.

I wanted to follow up that post with another proposal that fixes the primary problem with going to consumption taxes, which is their impact on the working poor and middle class. One benefit of a consumption-based tax regime is that it captures money from every transaction, making every one a part of the solution to our fiscal mess.  It is also far more stable than a highly skewed progressive system that only taxes the rich. (Social Security notwithstanding)

The most difficult political and policy problem preventing the adoption of a consumption based tax system is that it places a “burden” on the working poor and middle class. (burden being interpreted both in policy and political terms)

Simply put, in a consumption tax system, the lower end of the earning spectrum pays a much greater share of their income in taxes than the rich.  Many will argue that this is “unfair.”  Leaving that argument aside, it is fair to say that this problem MUST be resolved before any politician is going to risk moving the entire system away from income taxes.

I propose such a solution in this post, beginning with my answer to Barone’s “Now What?”

Read more

Coal and Electricity Generation

World Wide Growth In Coal

Per the official US Energy Information Administration statistics (they have an excellent site, the link to this data is here, the use of coal for electricity generation will continue to grow over the next 25 years (their forecast goes through 2035). In 2007, the world generated 7.92 trillion kilowatt hours using coal, or 42% of global energy generation. In 2035, they predict that 15.02 trillion kilowatt hours of energy will be produced using coal, or 43% of global energy generation. Thus in an ABSOLUTE sense power generating by the use of coal will increase by approximately NINETY PERCENT over the next 25 years (through 2035), and the total output of power generated by coal in 2035 will be approximately equal to EIGHTY PERCENT of power being generated from ALL sources today (coal will be 15.02 trillion kwh in 2035 vs. 18.77 in 2007, the year with the most recent statistics available).

The purpose of this background is to explain that the continued use of coal for the world as a whole will continue at the same approximate percentage that it provides today (about 42-43%) and that the absolute generation of power utilizing coal will almost double in the next 25 years (increases 90%).

Thus for all the talk of alternative energy, the reality, world-wide, is that coal is the largest share of generation and will continue to remain this way for the foreseeable future. So if you believe that we are moving to alternative energy as a whole, it isn’t true, and if you believe that coal is going away, if anything it is going to almost double in the next 25 years.

Read more