Skip to main content

The DailyKos on Energy and Subsidies

A couple of weeks back, my colleague David Bradish published a post that cleared away a lot of the smoke that anti-nukes blow to conceal the truth about energy sources and government subsidies. Late on Friday, I came across a post at the DailyKos by diarist NNadir that merits further examination:
World-wide nuclear energy in 2004 produced about 2,620 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, meaning that the "subsidy" amounted to about 0.6 cents per kilowatt-hour on average, a trivial portion of what the average person sees on his or her electric bill.

[...]

For comparison purposes - since it's likely to come up - solar electricity, which is also subsidized, produces power at 21.4 cents per kilowatt-hour according to the solar promotion site, Solar Buzz. In some places, like where I live, you can get the government to pay - to subsidize - about half of that cost, assuming you're wealthy enough to afford the other half. In spite of this wonderful state of affairs, solar electricity is still trivial. All the subsidies in the world have not made it produce even 0.1% of the world's electrical energy.
Nadir's conclusion: If anything, nuclear energy's real world performance would seem to make the case for additional subsidies.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Lee said…
I took notice of solar power in 2004 when yearly installations exceeded 1 GW. I had previously thought solar was an expensive joke but I don't anymore. The industry is doubling every three years and prices have declined by 20% with each doubling. Solar is expensive today but if you project out 10 years you have 16 GW of yearly production and electricity delivered at under 15 cents/kWh. The subsidies seem to be working. At what point does solar power become non-trivial to you Eric?
Eric McErlain said…
I don't know -- perhaps you should address your concerns to Mr. Nadir.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

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…