Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy and Loan Guarantees, Part III

In our final installment on nuclear energy and loan guarantees, Richard Myers, NEI's Vice President of Policy Development, explains why subsidies aren't a four-letter word in American political history.

Subsidy Is Not A Four-Letter Word

Can we talk about subsidies?

In our last post, we took issue with the anti-nuclear refrain – “massive subsidies for the nuclear power industry” – and showed that the energy loan guarantee program is self-financing and clearly not a subsidy.

But this unrestrained use of the word “subsidy” troubles me. I can’t think of another word in the English language that is so overused or so misused. Overused to the point of being meaningless, misused as a slur, and employed selectively when it suits the user’s narrow self-interest.

Think about it: Is there anything in American life that is not subsidized, and appropriately so? We subsidize higher education and production of agricultural products. We subsidize home ownership through the mortgage interest deduction. We use loan guarantee programs to subsidize exports of U.S. goods and services (through the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation). We also use loan guarantee programs to subsidize shipbuilding, steelmaking, rural electrification, and construction of critical transportation infrastructure like subway systems, toll roads, waterways and airports. In fact, the federal government manages a loan guarantee portfolio of approximately $1.1 trillion which, on balance, returns more to the Treasury than it costs the taxpayer.

We use the tax code to subsidize certain forms of behavior that deserve encouragement. The 2005 energy legislation provided several billion dollars of investment tax credits to certain clean coal technologies (because it’s in the public interest to deploy technologies that burn coal with lower emissions). The same legislation reduced the depreciation period for investments in new electric transmission facilities (because the nation desperately needs additional long-haul transmission to maintain the reliability of electric service across the country). And it allowed shorter depreciation for pollution control equipment on power plants (because it’s in the public interest to have cleaner air).

We provide subsidies in various ways either to offset market imperfections that preclude the flow of capital to certain activities that serve the common good and general welfare, or to encourage activities that are in society’s general interest. Are there abuses? Probably. But the benefits far outweigh those costs.

So be on your guard the next time you hear someone start tossing around the word “subsidy.” Odds are that he or she has an ax to grind. Odds are that he or she is perfectly content to accept subsidies that work to his or her benefit, like the mortgage interest deduction. They selectively pick and choose, opposing only those subsidies they don’t like for whatever reason.

One final thought: “[I]t is the interest of the society … to submit to a temporary expense, which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and by the circumstance of eventual cheapness ….”

That was written by Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures, published in December 1791. The same Alexander Hamilton who was first Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, founded the national bank, and was one of the two chief authors of the Federalist Papers. The same Hamilton whose likeness appears on the $10 bill.

When Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne or any of the other anti-nuclear activists who are so concerned about “massive subsidies” say anything, write anything or produce anything of sufficient value to earn a place on the $10 bill (or even the penny), then I might be inclined to credit seriously their opinions about nuclear power, loan guarantees, subsidies, and energy and economic policy.

But until then …

Previously:
Part I
Part II

Comments

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…