Skip to main content

Hertsgaard and the "Real" Cost of Nuclear Energy

Last month Marketplace on NPR ran a commentary by Mark Hertsgaard from the Nation on the "High Cost of Nuclear Energy". If you've never heard of him, he wrote a book back in 1983 titled: Nuclear Inc. The Men and Money Behind the Nuclear Industry.

Eric and I have been playing with podcasting for the site and would like to share our first podcast on Mr. Hertsgaard's commentary. Listen here for the critique.

As well, I was interviewed last week by John Wheeler from "This Week in Nuclear" discussing nuclear's costs and the MIT study Mr. Hertsgaard references. In the coming weeks John and I plan to discuss nuclear's subsidies which Hertsgaard claims nuclear can't live without.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous said…
Can the NEI please get an annual tally for the total cash flow from the nuclear power industry back to public coffers (state, federal and local property taxes)? Property taxes alone must total more than 1 billion annually. And don't forget user fees to the NRC. My suspicion is that net subsidies (subsidies received minus taxes paid) to the nuclear power industry are actually way, way negative, but I don't have the data to prove it. This seems like a job for NEI.
Randal Leavitt said…
I guess I missed the training day when everyone learned that subsidies are a bad thing. Lots of good things are subsidized: sewars, police, army. What's the problem with subsidies, even if they are needed? The anti-nuke cult is speaking in code when the word "subsidies" is read out, and everyone in the audience is supposed to go "oooooo" at that point to show that they are true cult zealots. I think I lost my cult membership card a long time ago.

Let me state this another way - I would rather be alive using subsidized clean energy than baked to death due to global heating caused by unsubsidized dirty energy. And it is really hot outside today.
David Bradish said…
Anon, we are working on pulling together some papers on subsidies received by the industry as well as other fuel sources.

Preliminary results suggest the most subsidized industry is oil and gas primarily due to the subsidizing of exploration and drilling.

We do have studies done on individual plants and the economic benefits paid to the community. Check it out here.

Randall, you're exactly right. When lawmakers subsidize an energy source it means that they want it badly. Nuclear received a great amount of R&D back in the '70s when everyone wanted it.

Now 30 years later the antis are using these costs to say its a bad thing even though only 103 reactors provide 20% of the electricity in the U.S. without producing emissions. There are over 3,000 coal units producing 50% of the electricity.

I'd say that's efficiency and that the R&D money was well spent.
mr. X said…
Im actually very fond of subsidies when it comes to things like alternitive energy. Im just not in favor of nuclear power.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…