The rating on national scale ‘mxAA +’ of business gas rates emissions of Gas Natural Mexico, S.A. de C.V. long-term bonds reflects the unconditional and irrevocable guarantee provided by Gas Natural SDG. The rating is limited by the significant financial risk of Gas Natural SDG profile. This is in line with the financial risk profile of other issuers/guarantors in the category of ‘mxAA’. The financial indicators for issuers with ratings in this category are generally weaker in relation to those who have a rating of mxAAA showing intermediate and moderate financial risk profiles.
Nuclear power is the most sensitive to rates, this can be seen from the slopes of 3.3.7 figure, which is an important factor when evaluating the plant. With respect to this exercise, it is important to highlight that utopian gas argentino, without interruption, to the 2002 prices, independent of the rate again to use this would be the project star. But now again the Argentine gas is seen as a very distant option and will have to consider in the future huge energy dependency that entails, especially bearing in mind the recent cuts of gas. On the other hand, a LNG project appears as a much more expensive alternative than nuclear.
With regard to coal is that from a rate of 17.5% nuclear power is more expensive than this one, which is good news for the inclusion of nuclear power in Chile, since the rate for riskier projects is of the order of 14%. But this analysis is the failure to consider that carbon uses the same rate of discount that a nuclear project, a coal plant is a low-risk project, the ideal is to evaluate it at a discount rate between 10% to 12%, to have a clear idea of the prices that are shown below the table 3.3.8.
The main competitor of nuclear power in the Chilean market, are the coal-fired plants, as shown in the table 3.3.8. But coal plants have the problem that the proportion of fuel in average costs is very large, which can lead to volatility over the average that a nuclear plant cost. Below shows the distribution of costs in various technologies.
As you can be seen in Figure 3.3.12, if coal plants are required to a payment by more than 10 US$ / ton CO2 emissions, nuclear energy under any scenario is more convenient than a coal plant. That is that if you push a policy of reducing emissions in Chile, nuclear energy is a good alternative that reduces emissions and which does not fire the costs of generation.…