1. The Baptists and Bootleggers metaphors make sense to me. The paradox is that it is the logic of a lack of regulation that brings it to fruition.

  2. Rod, I’m not sure I follow you on the point that Rowe doesn’t want the competition to build new nuclear plants – because as Exelon has a monopoly on their territory (making an assumption here) then why should he care if Southern Co. or Entergy builds NPPs for their customers? Unless he is planning another merger with a competitor, those customers are out of Exelon’s reach anyway. Or maybe, he is thinking about the indirect competition of who is the biggest, best performing, etc. utility company compared to other utility companies which would seem a bit excessive.

    1. Jason – Exelon is not a monopoly utility company. They are a “merchant generating” company that sells the output of their power plants into a “competitive” wholesale market whose price is determined by the bid of the “last in” supplier – the generator whose output is required to meet the projected demand.
      That is why the company earnings are so dependent upon the price of natural gas, even though almost all of its generation comes from nuclear energy plants. The cost of its power is quite predictable, but the SALES PRICE is dependent on market forces. That is why Rowe is so concerned about the potential impacts of new, low cost power supplies in the regions where his plants operate.

    1. No, Kit, Rowe might not be damaging anything…or he might be damaging everything.
      Rowe intends to sit on his buttocks, rake in the filthy lucre, rather than advance the mission of electricity, advance the power of nuclear energy, and advance the economic development of where he lives. This is the perverse incentive of electrical deregulation. Demand moves to meet supply – the US deindustrializes as a result. The only way to make money in a regulated market was to make more electricity. The only way to make REAL, bankster-grade money in a deregulated market is to make LESS electricity.
      Meanwhile, in China…does supply move to meet demand? I suppose it does.

  3. I believe that the rational “fee and dividend” approach to carbon control and GHG reduction will be a non-starter because the powerful political and financial interests that support CAP & TRADE tax will not enjoy as large of a windfall.
    Powerful political and financial interests are using the climate issue to drive an agenda that will augment their power and wealth. Since “fee and dividend” does neither it will be conveniently sidelined and receive little real consideration even though good minds like Jame Hansen (and I dare say Rod Adams) favor it.

    1. Robert – you may be right, but I cannot simply sit back and accept a situation where “the fix is in”. I strongly disagree with the notion of cap and trade – the whole idea of creating such a large potential for bubbles and corruption by trading something that does not exist without government action – emissions credits – seems quite risky to me.
      I would bet that most Americans have had their fill of “risk” for now and would like something more predictable and tangible in terms of discouragement for emitting and encouragement of reliable, low cost, emission free source that might require a bit of initial investment and hard work.

    2. Let’s call Cap and Trade for what it is: monetizing pollution. What disagrees with me is the idea of assigning value to something that didn’t have any to begin with – sounds like the essential makings of any good scam to me.

  4. I find Cavanagh’s comment hilarious, considering who he is.
    Cavanagh is a high-ranking lawyer for the NRDC. He’s one of the high-profile commentators who’s actually been going around saying that renewables can meet most or all of our future energy needs at a (unsubsidized) price lower than nuclear. Of course, he does this while continuing to support policies that explicitly avoid allowing nuclear any chance to compete in a non-emitting energy market (i.e., Renewable Portfolio Standards and massive subsidies for renewables only). In other words, he’s a charlatain.
    Given that history, what he said about Rowe (and Exelon) is positively hilarious. Intellectual dishonestly taken to a whole new level. He knows damn well that Rowe’s support for GW policy has absolutely nothing at all to do with renewables. His business interests and enrivonmental issues are inseparable because of NUCLEAR.
    I’d like to think that Rowe would be getting something back, from groups like NRDC, for all the help he’s providing the cause. Them lightening up on nuclear, perhaps. Oh wait, I forgot, Rowe doesn’t actually care about building new plants.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts