Comments on: The Atomic Show #26 - Helium, MIT study, coal http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/08/23/the-atomic-show-26-helium-mit-study-coal/ A show about atomic energy Fri, 4 Jul 2008 18:39:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Rod Adams http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/08/23/the-atomic-show-26-helium-mit-study-coal/#comment-3212 Rod Adams Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:39:53 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/08/23/the-atomic-show-26-helium-mit-study-coal/#comment-3212 John: Great idea. Whenever you are ready to put together the working group, count me in. As I mentioned in the show, I have reconstructed the model that the MIT group used in their study - it is a valuable tool for conducting sensitivity analysis to understand what really drives the complex equation of a cost per kilowatt hour. An awful lot of assumptions and predictions have to be made to come up with that number, especially for capital intensive projects with potentially long useful lives. Rod John:

Great idea. Whenever you are ready to put together the working group, count me in. As I mentioned in the show, I have reconstructed the model that the MIT group used in their study - it is a valuable tool for conducting sensitivity analysis to understand what really drives the complex equation of a cost per kilowatt hour. An awful lot of assumptions and predictions have to be made to come up with that number, especially for capital intensive projects with potentially long useful lives.

Rod

]]> By: John Wheeler http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/08/23/the-atomic-show-26-helium-mit-study-coal/#comment-3198 John Wheeler Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:14:40 +0000 http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/08/23/the-atomic-show-26-helium-mit-study-coal/#comment-3198 Rod and Shane, Great discussion of the MIT Study. As you stated, many of the assumptions that went into that piece of work have turned out to be invalid for so many reasons. I've been tempted to contact the original authors and ask them to update it. Perhaps we should get a working group together and revise it ourselves, then put out a press release and hold a news conference - Call it "Return to MIT - Why Nuclear Power Is on The Comeback". Do you think the NY Times and the Washington Post would show up? Keep up the Great Work! John "This Week in Nuclear" Rod and Shane,
Great discussion of the MIT Study. As you stated, many of the assumptions that went into that piece of work have turned out to be invalid for so many reasons. I’ve been tempted to contact the original authors and ask them to update it. Perhaps we should get a working group together and revise it ourselves, then put out a press release and hold a news conference - Call it “Return to MIT - Why Nuclear Power Is on The Comeback”.

Do you think the NY Times and the Washington Post would show up?

Keep up the Great Work!

John
“This Week in Nuclear”

]]>