Skip to main content

Inside U.S. Energy Subsidies

The Wall Street Journal's excellent blog, Environmental Capital, takes a look at the federal energy subsidy pie and asks, Who's getting what?
Since 1999, federal energy subsidies have more than doubled—from $8.2 billion to $16.6 billion in 2007. Who gets the most? “Renewables” landed $4.8 billion last year, but that includes $3.25 billion for ethanol and other biofuels. Coal and cleaner-burning “refined” coal took home $3.3 billion, while the nuclear power industry got $1.3 billion. In all, about 40% of the energy subsidy pie went toward electricity production; the rest for things like alternative fuels and energy conservation.

...But the raw numbers don’t tell the story. What does is how much cash the government hands out per unit of electricity produced. The winner there is refined coal, at $29.81 per megawatt hour. That’s even more than solar power ($24.34) or wind ($23.37). Nuclear power received $1.59 per megawatt hour. Regular coal took home $0.44 per megawatt hour, while the least-subsidized of power fuels was natural gas, which got just a $0.25 boost per megawatt hour.

Comments

Lisa Stiles said…
Be sure to stop by the WSJ's blog and join the debate going on in the Comments section. Some stalwarts from NIRS and Public Citizen are posting links to plenty of misinformation.

Lisa
Anonymous said…
I'm a bit confused as to the units used in calculating relative subsidies.

After all, the average wholesale price of electricity is about $50 per megawatt-hour.

Joe Somsel
perdajz said…
Let's not forget the largest subsidy the coal power industry gets: 30,000 lives per year, at a minimum. The nuclear power industry gets none, I'm more than happy to say.

I don't think subsidies are the complete picture. You can't discuss subsidies received without discussing taxes paid, or (unpaid) externalities for that matter. A more accurate measure might be:

(taxes - (subsidies + externalities))/MW-hr

I'd love to see this metric tabulated for the various electricity sources. Nuclear should compare favorably. It is taxed heavily, especially at the local level, and pays for its own externalities (waste disposal) or pays to prevent any externalities (engineered safeguards, containment). The denominator is huge, of course.
Anonymous said…
I double-checked and the units are correct - nuclear gets about a 3% subsidy on a per-kilowatt or per-megawatt basis at wholesale. I used the EIA database of gross nuclear production.

That's assuming the dollar amount of the subsidy is correct.

Of course, one needs to subtract the nuclear waste trust fund fees that are collected but not spent as this money goes into the Treasury. That is a bit less than $1 per MW-hr.

That would knock the actual taxpayer net subsidy down to about 50 cents per MW-hr or 1% of wholesale price.

Joe Somsel
robert said…
Actually, according to this report, a report that you actually linked to, the numbers you have posted here are grossly inaccurate.

When you are putting misinformation out, be careful not to supply the proof that you are not being honest, because someone might actually check your facts.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

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…