[cdn-nucl-l] reply to "Nuclear and Wind Economics WITH NUMBERS"

[Tom Adams <TomAdams@nextcity.com>]

Adam's nuclear cost analysis needs more work. For example, he equates
the wholesale value of power with its retail price (as if there was no
cost for T, D, DRC, or dispatch). Morgan starts to straighten this one
out but, in claiming that the wholesale price is limited to 3.8 cents,
reveals that he doesn't understand the pricing mechanism in Ontario
either. Adam reflects nothing for the repayment of the $1.5 B in
taxpayer dollars being sunk as we speak in PA (notice that this repair
was not anticipated during the mid 1980's retube). His cost of capital
is not reported. His understanding of how OPG's free cash flow is
allocated bears no resemblence to reality. Those are the main obvious
problems. There are more subtle problems with Adam's analysis as well,
but ones that are worth discussion. For example, the financial structure
for waste management that OPG and OEFC use is quite wrong but hard to
fix. Somebody might have some ideas on this point. A central problem is
that the liability is, in the main, not volumetric yet the collection
mechanism is volumetric.

In today's market, wind generation in Ontario is uneconomic by a
significant margin (although some people might want to buy it anyway as
a form of voluntary taxation). The OPG and BE wind projects now underway
are all PR -- no commercial substance. Saying that nuclear can run
faster than a dead horse might excite some of its fans but doesn't mean
much.

None of the hydrogen economy fans took me up on my friendly wager about
H2 not becoming a significant fuel in the next 10 years (09 Jan 2002).
Any takers for another friendly wager that B3 and 4 will not both be
running "by the summer of 2003" as Bruce Power said in its July 11, 2001
press release?

Tom Adams, Energy Probe