1. I love the quote from Dale Coffin in the article :

    He said reactor refurbishment was still “a very viable business” for the company, as it is much cheaper than building a replacement reactor.

    Classic. When you set the bar low enough, there’s no limit to how insane you can be and still keep a straight face.

  2. Mr. Adams, I appreciate your website as well as your contribution in the press and on blogs. However, the press isn’t needed to report that Bruce Power finished the tube installation in unit 2. Bruce has a release notifying this installation is completed in unit 2, which also notes the work progressing well on unit 1:

    It’s also worth noting that, at $3.5 billion, New Brunswick would be getting output at half the price as Ontario will receive through its FIT deal with the Korean syndicate. It’s a difficult comparison in that the Ontario deal is no money down – and then an estimated $18 -20 billion over the term of the 20-year contracts, for 2500 MW of wind and solar likely to average under 600MW of power. My math notes show that to be equivalent to about $7 billion today (at a 4.5% interest rate).

    Some historical review of the value of Point Lepreau might be helpful. I don’t have the figures, and may lack the ability, to do such a review, but here is what I know. In 1983 Point Lepreau began producing electricity with a planned lifespan of 25 years. During those 25 years the capacity factor averaged approximately 78%.

    The Gentilly 2 figures are very similar.

    I perceive a possibility nuclear isn’t the money pit many are implying, and suggest some optimism, based on the Bruce Unit 2 experience, is warranted.

Comments are closed.