Skip to main content

Inside U.S. Energy Subsidies

By
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.

Labels:

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
April 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM
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
April 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Anonymous 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.
April 28, 2008 at 9:30 PM
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
April 29, 2008 at 1:46 PM
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
October 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more