Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

17 Comments

  1. Now that gas in storage is below the 5 year average and the price is rising fast I think it is time to stop using terms like gas glut and oversupply. It looks to me like the bubble has already burst.

  2. And I will be a bit disappointed if there isn’t a good Jaczko article within the next 2 days here at Atomic Insights, Rod.

    No pressure 🙂

  3. But you know, hype or not, the public’s mostly positive real-life perception of natural gas doesn’t change via their world reality lens of the mass media and ads. And give the devil his due, the gas/oil industries are only rightly doing PR-wise what nuclear’s been anemic at for generations. I just can’t begrudge them their success at pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. It’s nuclear’s total PR inaction at even defending itself, much less attacking, at fault not them. Even if there’s no true “nuclear industry” you still have 104 plants with 104 general managers and 104 community PR offices and 104 site unions which could all bother to form a nuclear brotherhood outside their different energy parents and for their mutual benefit start promoting nuclear in “generic” national educational pro-nuclear ads to at least tread gas’s media turf. I mean really, this isn’t rocket science. They gotta hawk nuclear’s virtues as though their and future jobs depended on it, forget an entire nation’s clean environment and energy security.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  4. Bloomberg just published an article about a study from Cornell stating that NY state could go all unreliable by 2030 for $382 billion. I posted a comment showing how they could be completely CO2 free by 2028 for less than $100 billion.

    1. Hmmm. The link I thought I posted seems to have dropped off. The article title was “New York Renewable Power Plan Would Cost $382 Billion by 2030” – Bloomberg.

      1. Re: “Hmmm. The link I thought I posted seems to have dropped off.”

        Huh. Why does such an omission/bad input/dumped post/preemptive censorship on media sites sound TOO familiar? Another reason the nuclear community must aggressively take self-promotion and ads into its own hands! Someone should send Greenpeace Louise Downing there in London the hyperlink to that fabulous YouTube clip of how much pristine scenic real estate is ruined by wind farms vs one sole nuke, though I’m pretty sure her readers won’t see it. Personally, I’d like to grab such folks by the scruff of the neck and “ask” them to print in black and white just why they’re so hell-bent on dismissing nukes so their readers can get a wind of where their heads and prejudices and maybe purses are.

        James Greenidge
        Queens NY

        1. I meant that the link I tried to put into my comment here. It disappeared but the rest of the post showed up. I used the a href tag listed below the comment text window, with the carrots on either side, but the html did not make it into my comment here for some reason. My comments on the Bloomberg article are still there as far as I know.

  5. All I can say is that I sure hope you (Rod) are right concerning the trajectory of gas prices, with respect to investments. For people with uranium and nuclear utility stocks, etc…, it has been absolutely brutal, for several years, and the main, single reason is low gas prices. Nuclear/uranium stocks fell even more in 2012 than they did in 2011 (the year of Fukushima)! Can’r really figure that one out.

    1. Simple to figure out, Jim. Low NG prices = low electricity prices. Go look at the early-March Henry Hub price (or just look above to that chart). It dropped below $2.00/MMBtu. When I looked today, it was up to $4.18/MMBtu.

        1. jmdesp, I believe it is dependent on a given generator. Many combined cycle NG plants, approaching 60% thermal efficiency, are likely still lower cost than coal even after the recent rise to above $4.00/MMBtu.

Comments are closed.