Skip to main content

Incentives or Investments?

Federal subsidies and their role in promoting our national interests have been debated since the earliest days of our nation. Earlier this week, NEI and Management Information Services Inc. released a MISI report that catalogs in exhaustive detail the panoply of federal subsidies for energy development since 1950. This report presents the facts on the many forms of subsidies employed by the federal government and the amounts expended to promote each type of energy. As the principal author, Dr. Roger Bezdek, said to reporters at the National Press Club on Tuesday, the report does not make any judgments about the appropriateness of the mix, amounts, or targets of energy subsidies. It simply tries to lay out the numbers as completely and accurately as possible, so that public discussion about the history and future of federal energy incentives can be well informed.
The MISI report also does not touch on the other side of the subsidy story - what the public gets in return. NEI has done a series of studies of the economic benefits of individual nuclear power plants. Using typical results from those studies in 2005 NEI estimated the lifetime economic benefits of a new nuclear plant. As shown in the table above, the results indicate that the typical new plant will return more than 11 to 20 billion dollars in local, state and federal taxes and jobs over its lifetime.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
The MISI report, together with the 2007 EIA report on Federal energy interventions, quite clearly demonstrates that the civilian nuclear power industry has in total received federal subsidies that are less than 10% the amount claimed claimed by nuclear critics. This "subsidy" is more than offset by the $14 Billion which the civilian nuclear power industry has paid to the federal government for services which the government has failed to provide.

When this subsidy to the federal government is subtracted from the industry's total federal subsidy, it is clear that the nuclear power industry inadvertently subsidizes the federal government rather than the other way around.

See my posts on Nuclear Green for more details:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/09/energy-subsidies.html
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/09/energy-subsidies-again.html
(I have also cross posted to Energy from Thorium and Daily Kos.)
Anonymous said…
This is double-counting. The MISI study, if you read it, already deducted the $14 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund from its figure for historical total subsidies to nuclear power.

Why won't you post this comment?

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…