Guest post by David Middleton
The push to save U.S. nuclear plants for the sake of fighting climate change is threatening support for the bread and butter of clean power: wind and solar.
New York and Illinois have already approved as much as $10 billion in subsidies to keep struggling reactors open for the next decade as part of a plan to limit fossil fuel consumption. Lawmakers in Ohio, Connecticut and New Jersey are debatingwhether to do the same.
The reactors, which are being squeezed by low natural gas prices, offer a singular advantage in the fight against global warming because they produce round-the-clock electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. Yet renewable energy operators including NRG Energy Inc. and Invenergy LLC say keeping nuclear plants open will leave grids awash with excess power, leaving little demand for new wind and solar farms.
“It’s the wrong policy — and whether it proliferates or not is going to be a really big factor,” Invenergy Chief Operating Officer Jim Murphy said during a panel discussion at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference in New York Monday.
[…]
“Renewable energy operators say keeping nuclear plants open will leave grids awash with excess power, leaving little demand for new wind and solar farms.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji9qSuQapFY
Keeping the “grids awash with excess power” is the only way to handle bellwether events without having to rely on brownouts and blackouts. Solar and wind can neither provide base-load nor flexible response to bellwether events. Increasing reliance on renewables makes it imperative that we keep the “grids awash with excess power.”
There appears to be a lot of whining about subsidies for nuclear power… With the renewables crowd doing all of the whining:
[…]
Nuclear’s economic woes comes as wind and solar are starting to show they’re cheap enough to compete with traditional generators, after years of help from subsidies. The push to aid reactors began last year after Exelon Corp. successfully argued in New York and Illinois that since nuclear does not contribute to global warming, its plants should receive a premium to help level the playing field with wind and solar.
“The fossil generators sell electricity with air pollution,” Joseph Dominguez, an Exelon executive vice president, said in an interview. “We sell electricity without air pollution — and that’s a different product.”
There are key differences between wind and solar subsidies and those for nuclear, according to clean-energy developers. Renewable energy credits have spurred an emerging industry, whereas nuclear subsidies are to preserve aging plants. And while wind and solar developers compete against each other for subsidies, those for nuclear benefit a single technology.
Market Rules
“The renewables industry has been playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices,” Amy Francetic, an Invenergy senior vice president, said in an interview. “This is picking and winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”
[…]
“The fossil generators sell electricity with air pollution,” Joseph Dominguez, an Exelon executive vice president, said in an interview. “We sell electricity without air pollution — and that’s a different product.”
Nuclear power absolutely is the leader of the pack at reducing so-called “greenhouse” gas emissions:
If reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important, nuclear power is the obvious answer. If reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost is important, natural gas is the obvious answer. If treading water is important, wind is the obvious answer. If failure is important, solar is the obvious answer. So, Mr. Dominguez is generally correct.
“The renewables industry has been playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices,” Amy Francetic, an Invenergy senior vice president, said in an interview. “This is picking and winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”
Really? Ms. Francetic, *government* always picks “winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”
As far as the renewables industry “playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices”…
The most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies reveals the following:
Solar and wind power are insignificant sources of energy.
Solar and wind power receive massive Federal subsidies.
The solar and wind subsidies are truly massive in $/Btu.
The true folly of solar power is most apparent in subsidies per kilowatt-hour of electricity generation. At 23¢/kWh, the solar subsidies in 2013 were nearly twice the average U.S. residential retail electricity rate.
Solar and wind subsidies are weighted toward direct expenditures of tax dollars.
Federal solar and wind subsidies were 3-4 times that of nuclear power in 2013. Only 2% of the nuclear power subsidies consisted of direct expenditures, compared to 72% and 56% for solar and wind power respectively… And the renewables industry has the gall to complain about New York and Illinois kicking in $500 and $235 million per year in extra subsidies to keep nuclear power plants running in their States. Really?
Solar power simply can’t work without massive subsidies. While the economics of wind power are improving, renewables are still extremely expensive relative to existing coal and nuclear power plants.
Most of the Federal subsidies for oil & gas (96%), coal (71%) and nuclear power (67%) consist of tax breaks. The subsidies for oil & gas aren’t really even subsidies. These are standard tax deductions and depreciation of assets.
What About the Externalities?
What about them? The cost of compliance with pollution regulations is built in to the cost of fossil fuels. The mythical Social Cost of Carbon has no net present value at a real world discount rate. What about the externalities of renewables? The costs of backup generation and power failures due to their intermittency are not built into the cost of these energy sources.
Featured Image
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jajajajajajajajaja
Time to buy shares of URA ETF.
Sounds like spam.
Looks like spam.
??
https://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/ura/
David:
And that changes what?
It is a push for stock purchases.
I think it was a sarcastic remark.
You are the judge, David.
To me it looks like any of myriads of stock pushes in various outlets.
‘At 23¢/kWh, the solar subsidies in 2013 were nearly twice the average U.S. residential retail electricity rate.’
They plan to make up for it with volume.
3X
With carbonomics™, logic and common sense fly out the window.
Solar City should open a land in Cali named ElonMuskistan
“Renewable energy operators say keeping nuclear plants open will leave grids awash with excess power, leaving little demand for new wind and solar farms.”
That statement alone shows it is not about providing power, it is about keeping the solar and wind gravy train rolling along.
Amen! It’s always been all about the money.
+10
The central issue is this: wind and solar electricity prices are often costed by comparing them with ‘new coal’ or ‘new gas’.
But that not how distributors see it. It they have an investment in a power station the comparison is to use the marginal cost of generating an additional kWh with what hardware they already have, and that is far less than buying power from someone who has to cover their capital investment.
At this time there are three very large renewable installations in South Africa. They are offering power to Eskom for less than the cost of ‘new coal’. But Eskom already has lots of coal powered generating capacity. They are refusing to accept any of the renewable power until they can raise the cost of electricity they sell to cover the difference between their marginal cost and the cost of the renewables.
The government is refusing to allow them to raise the selling price. So they keep their coal fired assets running instead, for the marginal cost of additional coal. That’s common sense.
Buying the renewable power only saves them the cost of coal while sticking them with the capital cost. They will play along, but not to their own disadvantage. Why should the renewables get a return on their investment but Eskom doesn’t?
A published memo from ESKOM, theSourth African monopoly electricity generator and distributor, quoted actual costs of producing electricity. The cheapest was the (old) nuclear plant at Koeberg, the most expensive fossil fuel was an older coal-fired system, and ‘renewables’ cost ESKOM about 3 times more than the most expensive coal! So, the ANC Government (as corrupt as most others) is forcing ESKOM to go ‘renewable’, because? One wonders which Government pockets were filled?
Which energy sources have the unintended consequence of freely distributing the base of the food chain throughout the world?
Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all Carbon based life forms.
The Bloomberg chart at the link “cheap enough” is wildly misleading, showing wind at the same cost as coal-fired and gas-fired generation. What a crock, you have to have coal and gas plants up but idling just to be able to use wind at all on the modern grid. “Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them…”
The truly disgusting thing is that when renewables make other sources of power cost more, the increased costs are included under the other sources, not under renewables. Making the renewables look, to the uneducated, like they have become less expensive.
MarkW – “.. when renewables make other sources of power cost more ..”
Good Point – The energy burden of constructing the renewables falls squarely on the existing energy sources, and that’s in addition to continually powering the grid. (That’s one reason why the first step towards renewables should not be dismantling existing power plants.)
This passage is truly idiotic:
These record breaking deals are not indicative of solar becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear power.
‘Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world.’
It is not only cheap, it’s priceless because it is worthless.
Is this 3c. the *marginal* cost of power, all CAPEX having been ignored?
And measured where? At the turbine, or as-delivered to Medina?
Don’t forget the incremental cable-copper-cost of harvesting power from all these wide-spread sources as compared with a CENTRAL generating-plant of the same capacity.
Nevada’s NV Energy has signed PPAs for PV wholesale. So yes, it is happening.
I meant NVE’s contracts are 4C and below (3.87 I think was the latest public announcement.)
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nv-energy-buys-utility-scale-solar-at-record-low-price-under-4-centskwh/401989//cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6985755/lbnl-2016-utility-pv-prices.png)
There’s something fishy here. $0.0387/kWh is a 72% reduction from $0.1377/kWh.
While the cost of utility scale PV installations has declined…
It hasn’t declined by anything close to 72%.
And when fossil plants are forced to cut power because of solar and wind generators providing the load, that lower fossil percentage is charged against them as a lower capacity factor. Yet another way to make fossil burners look bad.
Even worse… In Texas power plant operators have to report their deliverable capacity to ERCOT a day in advance. If fossil fuel or nuclear plants fail to deliver, they have to pay for the replacement electricity. Wind operators don’t have to pick up the tab if they fail to deliver.
What good is solar power at night? Late evening, early morning. Is we all shoul only be using electricity from 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM in the summer and from 12:00 noon to three in the winter?
One only has to look at the mess in South Australia where unreliable, but mandated, wind and solar continue to raise the “already high” price of power. Sending light and heavy industries who are unwilling to pay the high power costs out of the state. With its current plans to install $1.3billion in batteries, diesel generators and OCGG, the cost can only go higher. South Australia has the highest unemployment in Australia and it is going to go higher because of the madness and stupidity of renewable power.
David Middleton – the rate they paid in 2014 is likely based on net metering of the rooftop solar that was put back on the grid (which was paid at retail, not wholesale – ugh), though it could be for the other smaller solar projects that they have under contract. NVE didn’t have much solar back them – most renewable is geothermal and a 150 MW wind farm – they signed a couple of PPAs to meet the Renewable Portfolio standard back in the late 2000s at very high prices because the law was clear and they were short. These contracts are directly related to the low gas prices vs cheaper construction all in beautiful context of the tax credit.
Also it doesn’t count the cost of connecting the power source to the grid.
Power plants (gas, coal or nuclear… or tidal, hydro or geothermal) are centralised. You just need to pay for connecting the one point.
Solar and Wind are so diffuse that they cover huge areas. And disparate areas.
And they all need to be connected to the grid.
The situation facing nuclear plants varies enormously in different areas, with different energy generation technologies. Basically, the nuclear plants have been losing money over the past several years in certain areas where renewable requirements force their acceptance on the grid,
reducing the power being bought from nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are characterized as baseload plants, and to produce low prices (which nuclear can easily do) they must sell all of the energy they produce. The cost of running a nuclear plant is not reduced when all their power is not purchased – that only reduces their income, which results in operating losses. Here in South Carolina, over 50 percent of power is nuclear and that will shortly increas to near 80% when the two new AP1000 reactors go online. Electric rates here are quite reasonable and there are no govt subsidies for energy. Nuclear operators of plants that have been losing money, particularly in the midwest, that
if the govts don’t want to buy all their power, they will simply shut down some of them and force
the grid to buy all the power produced by those still in operation. THIS is the argument that forced state govts to agree to pay a per kWhr rate that will enable the nuclear plants to remain in operation in a situation where all of their power in not purchased. If they don’t then all that lost nuclear power will have to be replaced by fossil fuel power, and THAT can’t be allowed to happen in the states that are greenies. The claim that renewables are successfully competing is nonsense – their power is worth nowhere near the value of reliable power. In the case of rooftop solar, the grid is “paying”
solar roof owners essentially retail prices for the power they put on the grid. That’s crazy, although at least they usually require like-for-like compensation (i.e. peak power removed from the grid must be paid for by putting peak power onto the grid , etc). Florida apparently won’t allow solar roof owners to put their excess power onto the grid because they must abide by the requirements demanded of any power producer that feeds the grid, i.e. they must be capable of providing power on demand, which they obviously cannot do. So, far from competing,solar and wind generators
are allowed to operate without meeting any of the requiremnts demanded by all other grid providers. Anyone who claims solar/wind are “successful” power providers is full of B.S.
The only thing I would argue with the author is his statement: “If treading water is important, wind is the obvious answer.” Sprawling industrial wind factories are destroying communities across America! The article should be edited to say: “If failure is important, wind and solar are the obvious answer.”
Industrial Wind: A NET LOSER – Economically, Environmentally, Technically, and Civilly:
http://stopthesethings.com/2015/05/27/hammering-wind-industry-myths-the-in-a-nutshell-version/
It’s hilarious that Invenergy’s senior vice president, Amy Francetic, said, “This is picking winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.” What a joke! The only reason the wind industry exists in the first place is because the cronies at the top have been “picking and choosing winners and losers” in the energy market. Invenergy only went ahead with building their 58-turbine project here in Orangeville, NY in Western New York State because the Wind PTC (Pork-To-Cronies) was extended in the Fiscal Cliff Deal on December 31, 2012.
New York Wind Wars: Hiding the Facts (PTC allows Invenergy to desecrate): https://www.masterresource.org/grassroots-opposition/new-york-wind-wars/
The numbers are what they are. Relative to coal, wind breaks even in terms of costs and emissions. Here in Texas, wind works fairly well… Although it does create some grid issues.
Please explain “costs and emissions”. Did you mean a carbon tax on coal?
This assumes that there is some value in avoiding emissions…
Given that assumption, replacing coal with wind power is an even trade off and solar power is a HUGE loser.
The key point is that even if you assume there is some value in avoiding emissions, natural gas and nuclear outperform wind and solar by a wide margin.
Now, if you don’t apply any value to avoiding emissions, wind and solar would be just plain stupid.
Even when intermittency costs (back up power) and grid expansion are included?
Backup power is never included. Renewables are always worse than previously thought.
The fact that backup power is never included in these analyses to me simply screams fraud. They have availability estimates, so they can easily include an estimate for backup costs. But that would interfere with the narrative.
On another thread benben is claiming that in a few years, half of our electricity will be coming from renewables.
The delusion is strong in them.
“Sprawling industrial wind factories are destroying communities across America! ” It’s happening in rural Ontario as well. This situation is intensifying.
Here’s a link to a story done by Millie Weaver recently: https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-wind-energy-war-on-the-high-plains/
Proof that the EnviroWhackos know that CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever they call it this year. If CO2 was the cause Nuclear power is the only way to actually reduce the level so as to prevent Climate change. More than ten 1 GW Nuclear power plants could have been built and paid for on just the money Obama wasted on “Green” energy. Another fifty can be built on the subsidies needed to meet Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
In New Zealand it is geothermal that plays the role of nuclear in the US (but with some GHGs). It’s the lowest cost incremental base load. Wind is petty good here – long and thin N-S islands with a mountainous backbone in the face of the subtropical westerlies – so a relatively high utilisation.
PV isn’t in the race because demand is lowest in NZ when it generates and so therefore is the revenue it can earn. To earn top dollar PV would need to service the winter evening peaks, and that requires the addition of another technology to store the energy or shift the load to when the sun shines. It is cheaper just to forget the PV and install the “other technology” (or work on shaving the peaks).
HAS
A few weeks ago I saw part of a programme that included something about NZ wind power generation. There was a bit of a throw away line that wind power was a water saving measure and that wind power was more reliable than water power. I shortly afterwards had to change the station before I exploded from pointing out all of the inaccuracies portrayed as I perceived them.
The thing that got me was the admission that wind power in NZ has nothing to do with “carbon” reduction even though that is exactly how it has been sold for many years.
I guess that’s why here in Aus, we’re proposing enormous pumped storage hydro projects to back up the unreliables.
I think the point is the other way round. The extensive hydro helps absorb the variation in the wind.
As to their respective occurrence my experience is that rain and wind here tend to come at the same time. I should add that wind here stands on its own two feet, we are just lucky and get much better utilization than most elsewhere in the world. Don’t tell that to the tourists.
Once again David Middleton’s great graphic presentation and concise explanations are a powerful antidote to the obfuscation and out-and-out lies spread by the ‘climate change’ industry.
Cancel the kill permits for wind farms today – every one of those rotors stops turning tomorrow. It can be done, too – they are allowed to destroy endangered wildlife by Executive Branch action, not Congressional statute.
In fact, if you force “green” energy to actually be green, it all dies.
Cancel the $0.02/kWh WPTC and no new wind projects will happen. That’s how “competitive” wind is.
Here in New Zealand, we have already a energy market made up of ‘renewable’ power sources – mainly hydro – something like 80 to 90% I recall.
You’d think the ‘Green’ jack boot would be off the throat of the average consumer….would you not?
Oh no…not by a long shot.
With the push to ever ‘better’ forms of energy (and we all know what that is) and this costing far more than our hydro sourced energy, it is accepted that it’ll hurt the less well off in our country…BUT…there is always those miraculous subsidies that can be granted to those less well off, paid for by, well, many of the less well off.
Excuse me, but isn’t there something odd about that arrangement???
Replace a cheap and clean source of energy with an expensive and fickle source, with the new one costing more, but is then offset by taxes taken from people who have now less dollars due to the higher energy expenses!!!
Oh come on….this has just got to be p*** taking gone silly.
IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
And the “wealth” isn’t going from the rich to the poor!
I believe your link incorrectly uses http://www.nzzDOTch/ instead of http://www.nzz.ch
The wellhead price for natural gas is around $3/mmBtu. In 2013, the solar subsidies were 6 times the price of natural gas.
?w=720
Hmmmm….
Solar and & wind competing on a level playing field….maybe not so much.
“Lies, damn lies and green energy lies”
Yep, sums it up for me.
Oil and gas companies do not benefit from subsidies. DD&A is a tax writeoff, no different than writing off your mortgage payment at the end of the year when you do your personal taxes. On the other hand, wind and solar take our tax dollars for their benefit.
Yep. The depletion allowance and the expensing of intangible drilling costs are subsidies in name only. All businesses get to write off capital expenditures against assets and expenses against income.
It’s funded by the nuclear power industry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
It’s $13 billion per reactor incident. So far, the fund has paid out almost nothing, including Three Mile Island…
Until such a time that a reactor incident exceeds $13 billion, the question is moot.
There is no comparison.
If the fund were to be exhausted, the nuclear power industry would have to refill it.
Until such time that a reactor incident in the US exceeds $13 billion in claims, this is a moot point.
A hypothetical subsidy is not a subsidy.
There is no comparison because Fukushima was the result of one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded, triggering a tsunami which knocked out the backup power supply, leading to a meltdown.
If a 9+ earthquake, Yellowstone super-eruption, Tunguska-style bolide caused a similar disaster in the US, there would be a lot of subsidies doled out.
Hypothetical subsidies are not subsidies.
A hypothetical subsidy is not a subsidy.
Because 9+ earthquakes, Yellowstone super-eruptions, Tunguska-style bolides are well-beyond the scope of private insurance companies.
Government exists to do the things that are too big for the private sector. Subsidizing genuine catastrophes is a function of government. Subsidizing politically favored boutique energy sources is not.
Read your insurance policy. They generally don’t cover 9+ earthquakes, Yellowstone super-eruptions, Tunguska-style bolides and acts of war.
And if the reactor operator is guilty of negligence, they will probably win those lawsuits.
However, a hypothetical subsidy is still not a subsidy.
Until such time that a reactor incident exceeds $13 billion in claims, the subsidy is hypothetical… It does not exist.
Another bit of hypothetical nonsense.
Your pointlessness is acknowledged.
Fukushima was not a US reactor covered by the Price-Anderson Act… nor was Chernobyl.
Your idiocy is mind-boggling.
I’m done feeding trolls.
You lost the argument in the first exchange. Every subsequent comment of yours was nothing but moronic trolling.
No matter how much you continue with the moronic, idiotic trolling… a hypothetical subsidy is still not an actual subsidy.
http://wiki.c2.com/?TrollDefinition
No. You just keep babbling and ignoring patient explanations… SOP for trolls.
https://youtu.be/ojrQq6yc_2w
https://youtu.be/0c1Xuzz8pX4
I proved you wrong before you started…
https://youtu.be/S3jG0psGw3E
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-65O4KCy1RRM/UV1cfQZdGII/AAAAAAAAAHM/QsJ0z7IKUF4/s640/5881861191_90de8b5bc9.jpg
“Dave says: “There is no comparison.” ….. correct, Fukishima is in a relatively sparsely populated area, Just image Indian Point Energy Center 36 miles north of NYC having a meltdown. That $16 billion won’t be enough.”
This is just idiotic. You apparently believe that any nuclear accident must proceed to meltdown and said meltdown must condemn an area at least the size of the Fukushima exclusion zone. Let’s look at an actual example in the US: Three Mile Island.
And, most importantly, TMI-1, the reactor literally next door, continues to run to this day. So much for your presumption of $100BB+ disasters. The surrounding community was essentially untouched by the worst civilian reactor disaster in US history which included a partial meltdown of the core.
Tsk tsk, the Fukushima exclusion zone was a 100% political decision. There was never a need for it, the area is completely safe.
Harping on Chernybol is just more evidence that you have no intention of debating honestly.
“Tsk Tsk, changing the subject is does not answer the question as to how one evaluates the subsidy provided to the nuclear power industry by the Price-Anderson Act.”
Try again, sport. You cannot look at subsidies and costs separately. Back to your Coase, buckey. Reducing the regulatory burden and the associated deadweight losses would certainly free up additional capital to cover your hypothetical disaster scenario. And not that you’re truly interested in an intelligent response to your question, but Zycher has exactly that.
Now, can you tell me the subsidy that solar and wind operators get for being exempted from the Endangered Species Act? How much subsidy do they receive for the disposal of radioactive spoil from the separation of rare earths?
Subsidies do not exist in isolation. The fact that you don’t want to discuss the impact of costs and the regulatory environment at all is telling. Seriously, you quote a Cato publication and you’ve never even heard of Coase? Time to visit the library, sport.
Did you bother to read the Zycher link?
Since you ignore answers and moronically repeat your idiotic question…
Or here’s another fun one for you:
By law the federal government is required (and past due) to provide a permanent disposal site for spent nuclear fuel. They have not done so because of political games played by Barry and Harry. Nuclear operators and rate payers have provided billion$ in disposal fee payments to the federal government and are currently holding spent fuel in cooling ponds and dry cask storage. If an earthquake and tsunami were to impact this dry cask storage and cause a breach of containment, who is responsible for that? Is it the nuclear operator who, again, by law is entitled to never having to hold material in dry casks, or is it the federal government? I suspect I know how you feel.
Now talk to me again about subsidies in isolation.
Or perhaps you’d like to examine an interesting passage from your own Cato link:
(emphasis mine)
Gosh, do you think that unnecessarily burdensome regulations might constitute a “distortion” and hence be relevant to the question of subsidies? I realize that Cato is a libertarian think tank, so it’s unlikely that they would have concerns over government regulation.
“By the way Tsk Tsk, Fukishima (>$100 billion) proves that the $13 billion Price-Anderson fund is not adequate for a serious nuclear incident. So the Zycher “opinion” is demonstratively useless in the real world.”
It’s amusing that you taunt Middleton for his troll postings and yet all you say over and over again is: “Price-Anderson is a subsidy!”
The Tohoku event is estimated to have cost over $300BB in material damage. It killed almost 30,000 people. Chemical plants were impacted and surely caused actual deaths unlike Fukushima. What is the cost of those? Did their insurance adequately cover it? Gosh, that sure sounds like a subsidy to me…
There were known deficiencies in the design of the Fukushima reactor and its backup systems which are not present in US reactors. Your argument would have been as silly if you had invoked Chernobyl. The fact is that the worst civilian nuclear power incident in the US cost under $1BB. I know that disappoints you, but facts is facts. Now how about addressing my other points?
I’m actually the one doing the taunting (AKA Troll bashing). I answered his question about Price-Anderson. He didn’t like the answer and started babbling about Fukushima and auto insurance.
Price-Anderson, “the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the Pipeline Safety Fund, the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, the Nuclear Waste Fund, and the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund” aren’t subsidies:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
If a reactor incident in the U.S. caused damages above and beyond the Price-Anderson $13 billion cap and the Federal government had to cover the excess damages, a subsidy would then exist.
Thus far, only about $151 million has been paid out under the Price-Anderson Act, including Three Mile Island.
“So the adjective “burdensome” in your verbiage is questionable.”
As is all of the reasoning in your Cato link. But I think you will find that most people who post at Cato would have a big problem with the NRC’s approval process.
No this is not just about nuclear plant liability. I get that you don’t understand Coase, so it’s probably pointless to continue this, but on the slimmest chance that you can bother to figure out Coase, then re-read your own link. You do understand that we’re not just confined to the design of the nuclear vessel itself but the backup systems, don’t you? (Actually, I doubt that you understand this). The siting of the backup generators and the protective seawall were inadequate to the known tsunami risks. You’ll need to provide an actual citation for a similar situation in the US.
So you can’t answer my points. You don’t understand Coase and you don’t understand externalities. You don’t understand the purpose of insurance and you don’t understand the role that government plays in distorting the market. You honestly believe that the NRC’s decades-long process of approving new nuclear designs has no impact whatsoever on the cost, safety, and insurability of nuclear power (Hint: passively safe designs are physically prevented from the same failure modes at Fukushima, TMI, or Chernobyl).
Truly, all you can do is babble “subsidy” over and over. It’s clear that someone else will have to try to educate you, because I’m no longer interested in playing pigeon chess.
http://i.imgur.com/gAoX6Oy.png
I think what he meant was ‘no forced cooling when SCRAMMED’.
I,e natural convection can take care of the decay heat.
Regardless of current comparisons, nuclear should be supported for when the price of gas goes up. It’s an insurance policy.
Same principle applies to coal.
Fair enough
What about the REAL externalities of solar and wind?
Solar:
http://www.solarscorecard.com/2015/
Wind:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Some electricity operators actually pay people to take their energy. link For reasons I don’t fully understand, it seems like they have to get rid of excess electricity.
If you’re going to have enough electricity for peak demand, then you will have too much most of the time, unless you can turn some generators down or off. That’s called dispatchable generation. The cheapest dispatchable generation is currently natural gas. Wind and solar are the opposite of dispatchable. The French make nuclear dispatchable by bleeding steam directly to the cooling towers.
I have an idea – let’s pick and rely on only one source of energy alone!
“The fossil generators sell electricity with air pollution,” Joseph Dominguez, an Exelon executive vice president, said in an interview. “We sell electricity without air pollution — and that’s a different product.”
I love this.
He should have said, “The fossil generators sell electricity with air pollution. The solar and wind generators sell electricity when the Sun shines and the wind blows just right. We sell electricity without air pollution 24/7 — and that’s a different product.”
They should have said “we sell electricity where the water pollution and land contamination occured offshore during the manufacturing”.
Wind-powered nuclear reactors are the obvious solution.
The pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear warmest factions loathe each other probably more than they hate the realists, à la The People’s Front of Judea vs. The Judean People’s Front:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/04/warmists-fight-nuclear-war/
Sigh.Fukushima was a minor industrial accident, in which no one died, similar to 3MI.
It was made into a disaster by deliberate overreaction applied by pressure groups and the media, which forced the Japanese government to undertake draconian evacuation and cleanup policies even though they had been informed that neither were necessary.
Even Chernobyl, which not only was the worst nuclear power accident ever, but the worst nuclear power accident that there ever will be, as it takes a spectacularly bad design of reactor to create an open fire of carbon rods in a functional reactor, only killed 78 people. And the exclusions zone is perfectly safe as the millions of animals that have found sanctuary there, as well as the people who refused to move, can testify. No ‘hundreds of thousands of cancer cases’ ever appeared. Just the expected 3000 thyroid cases which could have been prevented by timely issuance of iodine pills.
Once again we see that what really is happening in nuclear power terms, is cost manipulation by legislation. If you need a computer system to record every time an operator drops a pencil, and an insurance policy covering the entire replacement of a food of topsoil over 100,000 sq km of area to reduce local radiation levels to one tenth of natural background, then of course you can make nuclear too expensive.
More people have died as a result of windmills, than at chernobyl, and look what they died for. Trifling amounts or expensive erratic unreliable energy,. and vast profits for windmill constructors and owners.
Let’s get nuclear power in perspective. If you want to tackle something with a HUGE death rate, start with that irresponsible unshielded fusion reåctor that is the basis for all ‘renewable energy’. Did I tell you that ‘renewable energy’ accounts for over 9,000 deaths a year in the US alone?
http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
AS far as long term waste goes, what else is natural uranium in the ground BUT long term nuclear waste, and in fact it accounts for a large proportion of the radiation we are all exposed to. Nuclear power is, from another perspective actually reducing the net fissile isotopes in the world. We are in fact burning nuclear waste to reduce it, when we operate a reactor. And as for a few tonnes of contaminated water that flows into the sea, well there’s 4 billion tonnes of Uranium in the sea already. Of which around a percent is U235…
Nuclear power is scary because we have been educated to think it is. The facts are wildly different from the Hollywood pictures.
It’s expensive because we have enacted legislation based on fear, not on facts.
But that goes for the whole energy market. It has been manipulated by political and corporate forces for power control and gain, using fear and disinformation.
There is no rush to do anything, from the peoples’ perspective. Quietly abandon renewables, build gas and if you must coal, and start to re-educate the public about the real facts of nuclear power.
That by far the most likely way you will die of radiation induced cancer, is from lying on a beach in Cancun…
And the second most likely, is after cancer treatment using radiotherapy some decades later.
This whole thing with is it a subsidy/isn’t a subsidy… I’m just an ignoramus here, and to me a subsidy is an ongoing payment made to an industry to help keep the lights on. This Pricey Anderson act sounds more like a contingency fund – *if* there is a disaster, and *if* the fund isn’t big enough to clean it up, *then* the government steps in. There’s no ongoing payment, and in the business as usual scenario there won’t be one either. For renewables, however, sounds like ongoing payments by the government is part and parcel of business as usual.
That’s a reasonable summary.