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

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …