I may have made a terrible mistake in my thoughts (read support) about nuclear energy. I was confronted by my brother-in-law (for whom I have the greatest respect) this weekend with the assertion that "Nuclear Energy" is no better than biofuels from a market/economic perspective. In other words, it can't make it without subsidies. Is this right? I haven't had time to research yet.
I would have assumed some early subsidies but would also have assumed that by now they were honestly profitable. Any thoughts? Any sources?
I'm going to hate to eat this sandwich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I haven't heard that. Who does he work for, what are his sources?
I haven't had time to really discuss with him but I suspect it will end up being The Economist.
You made me curious, so I've looked into it just a bit. Kind of a hard question to answer without some work, which I can't say I've done. I'm left with an appreciation that part of the problem in answering the question and coming to agreement on it, is that there are different opinions as to what constitutes a subsidy.
Anyway, here are a few things I came across.
See here for list of govt-funded programs supporting the nuclear industry:
http://www.ne.doe.gov/publicInformation/nePIProgramFactSheets2.html
See the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that subsidized many forms of energy and included special provisions for nuclear energy (indemnity, cost-overrun
support of up to $2 billion for up to 6 new plants; production tax credits of up to $125 milion total per year):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109SkDbIL
Here's a paper on the topic of subsidies for nuclear energy. Comes from treehuggers so you may discount, but it gives nuclear its due for operating efficiently so maybe that lends the paper some credibility. It describes the state of affairs for the industry seeking help of various sorts from the fed govt. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp
You might also be interested in following the fate of The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 because it has provisions for energy subsidies, including special considerations for nuclear. (McCain is a cosponsor, as are Clinton and Obama.) Can read it here and follow its journey (so far just introduced): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-280
Here's an article that seems pretty pro-nuclear: http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html. It's citing "Management Information Services, Inc.", a research firm, rather than govt sources, for its numbers. That doesn't make them wrong; it just makes it hard to trust that they're right.
Michael's MN cousin
Michael's MN Cousin,
Thanks so much for non-work. I'll look into this in detail this weekend
As to the definition of "subsidy," I have to agree but in general, as you'd probably suspect, in my view any government assistance is a subsidy. Even tax breaks...heck, on a local level, tax breaks are the ultimate subsidy.
I'd have expected early subsidies for the nuclear industry but would have thought that by now it would be profitable and therefore no longer in need of subsidizing. If that is not the case, I will be troubled. If the science difficulties are still so great that the industry cannot profit without subsidy then I have to rethink my position.
The NIMBY waste problem will always be difficult and I acknowledge that. Likewise, the possible targeting of power plants by conventional enemies or those other not so conventional enemies. Those seem to be manageable to me.
I'm not opposed to all subsidies but do think that at some point the subsidized has to be able to stand on its own. For me, the real test is when that happens. Space exploration is the most subsidized industry ever (he wrote confidently without a clue whether it's true) and there is still no light at the end of that economic tunnel. Yet, JFK's subsidy is something I'll always support because the reward, someday, will be great.
Thanks again for your efforts. I do appreciate them.
Scooter
Post a Comment