Submitted by EnergyTechStocks.com

Yesterday in Part 1 of this EnergyTechStocks.com Special Report, Bruce Lacy, a 27-year nuclear industry veteran and head of Lacy Consulting Group, a Cedar Rapids, IA firm that closely follows the financial side of commercial nuclear power, gave out report cards to three of the world’s leading reactor builders. Toshiba/Westinghouse got an “A,” French giant Areva got a “B,” and General Electric/Hitachi got a “C.” Now here are the grades for the other three members of this worldwide class beginning with:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – Japanese giant Mitsubishi got only a “C” from Lacy because, as he put it, “They haven’t been able to convince people that they have a product that they can build and operate.” Lacy said the only reason Mitsubishi escaped getting a “D” was that their one customer, the former TXU utility in Texas, is now in the hands of private equity people who no doubt would have very carefully scrutinized Mitsubishi’s proposal. Lacy said it was ironic that Mitsubishi has been unable to win over other customers given that it has many reactors already operating in Japan. He wondered aloud whether the company’s design was coming across as having a too-high upfront or expected operating cost. “I think Mitsubishi could be a B or even an A student,” Lacy added, but “They haven’t made the grade yet.”

Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) – This Crown Corporation also got only a “C,” Lacy noting that while their reactor design “is a nice piece of equipment, they haven’t sold hardly any plants.” Lacy praised AECL for crafting an innovative commercial package that makes it easier for independent investors to make money. But he criticized the firm for not going after what he called the industry’s gold standard, namely, certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. By failing to do so, Lacy said, it appears to have people worried about whether the Canadian government is really committed to AECL.

Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd. – This South African company got an “Incomplete” from Lacy, who praised it for its new design, but immediately cautioned that because the design is such a “completely different animal,” it’s going to take the company longer to clear safety and regulatory hurdles. “They must still prove themselves,” he said, emphasizing that if and when they do, the company could have very bright prospects. Lacy noted that while the designs of the other members of his “class” envision a giant single unit generating, say, 1,700 megawatts (MW) of power, the Pebble Bed design is more modular, with an owner-operator in a position to instead build perhaps six 300 MW units, which should give the installation better overall reliability – a key advantage when planning new commercial nuclear power plants.