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

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…