6 Comments

  1. This interview is pure gold, but I don’t draw the same conclusions you do. First of all, I see a competent and polite man who believes strongly in the potential of fission but has been running up against impassable cultural (and as a result, economic) barriers his entire career. It’s his business to know what’s going on in the energy markets and I believe he’s shared his educated beliefs about that honestly here, and I thank him for it.

    He’s told us frankly that:
    “… we bought John Deere Wind … betting on the political market. We think that, regardless of the speeches I give, many States — perhaps even the federal government — will continue to have renewable energy portfolio standards. If we have to buy it, we want to sell it too. … Right now the wind that’s out there — many thousands of megawatts — is *all* driven by State requirements. It’s always the case of an unwilling buyer and a very willing seller.”

    And he’s made a very dire prediction, that wind may become economical in 30 years, but not because it gets cheaper! In other words, that energy becomes very expensive in the future. That would be very bad indeed:
    “It could be wind which will become more economic over [the next thirty years] — not because it’s going get that much cheaper, but because other things continue to get more expensive.”

  2. @Carl – you have not been following Exelon as long as I have. Before Rowe became the only CEO, the company, formed via a merger between Commonwealth Edison and PECO, had co-CEO’s. The other one was an amazing leader and visionary named Corbin McNeill.

    Unlike Rowe, Corbin saw that new nuclear might be “too expensive”, but did not think of that as a permanent situation. He realized that just like patience and commitment can cause unreliable technology like wind turbines and solar panels to fall in price, similar efforts could push nuclear power plants down in price.

    Instead of just complaining, he did something and invested a little of Exelon’s money into a project called the PBMR. That investment was not only provided needed capital, but was also a vote of confidence in a new company. When Rowe took over, he halted the participation and the investment, pulling the rug out from under a potentially game changing technology. He did that because he did not see any room for growth in his service territory; he wanted to pursue a high price strategy rather than an increasing volume strategy.

    https://atomicinsights.com/2001/02/exelon-goes-first-pbmr.html

    He also ensured that the two unit Zion facility was destroyed rather than restored to operational status. There are lots of links on Atomic Insights about that particular example of greedy behavior.

    I hate it when people like Rowe pretend like they have no power or influence over the government’s stupid rules to establish renewable portfolio standards. Instead of just going along, why doesn’t he take the moral high ground and say the truth – wind energy is a silly waste of money if your mission is to provide reliable, low cost, clean power to enable economic prosperity (not just for your customers, but for your company.)

    Take a good look at that stock price history. Think about what it might have been if the PBMR project had been vigorously pursued instead of being allowed to wither away. Then tell me again why you think John Rowe is anything more than a selfish, rich accountant with no vision for the future.

  3. I don’t think he’s a selfish, rich accountant, no. He’s obviously not that by looking at him. CEOs kill projects for lots of reasons, and the PBMR project had more than one. I don’t know about Zion so I’ll demur. You continually underestimate tremendous public support for “renewables”. I don’t think the CEO of a nuclear company really has much power to change it.

  4. Rowe must be in the 0.01%. Why would you expect anything that is not self-serving?

  5. I don’t. And you are correct, John Rowe is a very wealthy man who apparently looking down on people. He was also very lucky to have been able to take credit for the exceptional work done by Oliver Kingsley to improve Commonwealth Edison’s nuclear plant performance.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376894/index.htm

    In rereading that article I relearned something I once knew, Rowe is not an accountant, as I called him a few days ago. He is a lawyer, a profession with an even higher percentage of greedy non producers than accounting.

  6. You will find out rowe’s self-comes-first stance by asking current and past employees, Are you better of now than 5-years ago? It will go something like this; Thank goodness I still have a job at this miserable work place and, Downsizing former company staff paved the way for upsizing his golden parachute. Wonder if he gets the mummy back now?

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Baldwin praises oil industry leaders as “very, very smart, very shrewd, very necessary industrialists”; calls nuclear reactors “filthy”

    Apparently, when his current season of “30 Rock” ends, Alec Baldwin is interested in running for office, perhaps to become the mayor of New York City. His thoughts about energy technology and energy policy are thus gaining a new level of importance. During a September 2, 2011 interview posted on Huffington Post, Alec Baldwin claimed…

  • The Atomic Show #061 – Allison MacFarlane, Atomic Agnostic

    Dr. Allison MacFarlane is an Associate Professor of Environment Science and Policy at George Mason University. She is also a self proclaimed nuclear agnostic who is not sure that nuclear power can grow much. About a month ago a friend sent me a link to an interesting panel discussion that was held at MIT on…

  • Smoking gun: LNG ship builders and their financial backers stoke nuclear fears

    It’s been a while since my last ‘smoking gun’ report so it might be worth a brief reminder of what that categorization means. For Atomic Insights, the tag ‘smoking gun’ means a story that includes evidence of fossil fuel related interests working to oppose nuclear energy development, usually at a specific project. Some of the…

  • The Atomic Show #124 – Barton, Wheeler, Sorensen – Clean Atomic Energy

    On Sunday January 25, 2009, I invited three of the most active pro-nuclear bloggers for a chat about the state of the nuclear industry, clean atomic energy versus “clean” coal, renewable portfolio standards, effects of the current economic crisis. Charles Barton blogs at Nuclear Green and Energy from Thorium John Wheeler produces This Week In…

  • Clean Nuclear Energy Handed Decisive Win In U.S. District Court

    In July 2017, District Court Judge Manish Shah, U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois, handed a decisive victory to nuclear energy supporters and plant owners in a case that challenged Illinois’s right to choose the mix of fuels used to produce power inside its borders. The plaintiffs opposed the “Future Energy Jobs Act” recently passed…

  • Jeff Immelt of GE thinks nuclear is too hard – no surprises there

    There has been a flurry of commentary on the web and on Atomic Insights as a result of a recent Financial Times interview of Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, that ran under the headline of GE Chief: Nuclear ‘hard to justify’. The article provides an informative insight into the motive for Immelt’s dismissal of…