Skip to main content

More on Energy Incentives

A Musing Environment follows up on David Bradish's analysis from earlier this week.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Jim Hopf said…
This analysis is an extremely important reference for nuclear professionals to have on hand when the issue of subsidies comes up. The best I've seen.

What's amazing is that fossil fuel subsidies are higher even though the analysis only considers monetary subsidies, and ignores the largest fossil fuel subsidy of all. That is, the priveledge of polluting the air and water for free, and not paying for any of the (huge) public health and environmental effects that result. Most studies, such as the European Commission's ExternE project (http://www.externe.info/), show these costs (i.e., this subsidy) to be huge, on the order of 4-8 cents/kW-hr, enough to double fossil fuels' price.

It is not correct to equate Price Anderson with economic subsidies like those calculated in this study. It is correct to equate it with an external (i.e., unpaid health/environmental) cost, such as the huge unpaid costs enjoyed by fossil fuels. In either case, it's about inflicting (or potentially inflicting) health and environmental damage w/o paying for it. It's the same animal. Its just several orders of magnitude smaller for nuclear.

The whole idea behind PA is that nuclear should have to pay complete compensation for any health or environmental costs if it ever were to pollute the environment. The question is whether or not they are paying sufficient premiums to pay for full insurance that would cover even the worst accident. If nuclear's current premiums are only a fraction of what would be necessary, then the remainder could be considered a subsidy.

Sure, perhaps it is. But to give you an idea of the magnitude of this "subsidy", you have to consider the long term average public health and economic damage caused by such potential events. Well, it's been over 40 years and nothing even approaching such an event has happened. Furthermore, studies show that the ANNUAL pollution from fossil plants causes roughly the same magnitude of economic damage and far larger public health impact than would a very severe meltdown!! They do this every year and never pay one dime in compensation! As the expected frequency of a severe meltdown is roughly one per 1000 years, then the PA "subsidy" is ~1000 times smaller than the subsidy enjoyed by fossil fuels, even if you assumed the premiums paid by the industry are negligile/zero.

Studies bear this out. Even studies by anti-nuclear organizations that attempted to quantify the PA subsidy came up with values ranging from 0.03 to 0.3 cents/kW-hr. This, compared to the ~4-8 cent/kW-hr subsidy enjoyed by fossil fuels. I'd be happy to have nuclear pay an additional ~0.1 cent/kW-hr to cover any potential PA subsidy, or to pay for unlimited insurance itself, as long as fossil plants have to pay their (4-8 cent/kW-hr) external costs as well. Until that happens, forget it!

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…