Subsidizing Nuclear Will Only Make Our Grid Problems Worse

[Ksheed]

Provides an interesting take on the Nuclear Subsidy conversation.

Although pitched as temporary, urgent subsidies to expedite passage, these negotiations should be viewed as setting a long-term policy approach. If, in five years, natural gas prices remain low and renewables continue to expand (as there’s every reason to believe), we’ll be right back at the negotiating table with an industry on proclaimed life support. There are few policies that deliver less innovation than guaranteed payment, no matter the prevailing economics of the industry.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2016/08/11/subsidizing-nuclear-will-only-make-our-grid-problems-worse/#2a60fd5eb814

[Marlin]

Provides an interesting take on the Nuclear Subsidy conversation.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2016/08/11/subsidizing-nuclear-will-only-make-our-grid-problems-worse/#2a60fd5eb814

Sounds a little silly but it rings true.

" This makes announcing closure a lot like convincing a child you’ll leave without them if they don’t get in the car: “I’m putting my shoes on….I’m putting my coat on…I’m getting the keys…I really mean it…” Regulators should not be so naïve."

Regulators are bureaucrats so naive is an option. 


 

[Rerun]

Its already a heavily subsidized industry

[Marlin]

Its already a heavily subsidized industry

   Can you explain that, and please do not cite Price Anderson as it only allows a cap on liability in exchange for regulation something that has never been used. Zero government money to cover that liability cap not even for Three Mile Island.


The Price-Anderson Act is a consumer- and public-oriented legislation. It provides a substantial amount of insurance protection paid by the commercial sector at no cost to the public or the government. The Act provides “omnibus” coverage, that is, the same protection available for a covered licensee or contractor extends through indemnification to any persons who may be legally liable, regardless of their identity or relationship to the licensed activity. By providing omnibus coverage, those who may be harmed are assured of the availability of funds to pay their claims, and firms that contribute in some manner to the design, construction, operation or maintenance of covered licensees are all protected. Many of these companies, support services and equipment suppliers likely would not have participated in the nuclear industry without some liability limitation.





http://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insurance.htm

[Ksheed]

   Can you explain that, and please do not cite Price Anderson as it only allows a cap on liability in exchange for regulation something that has never been used. Zero government money to cover that liability cap not even for Three Mile Island.

[Bonds 25]

So, it's Nuclear that is causing grid problems......hahaha

It couldn't possibly be the heavily subsidized, intermittent, land hogging, scenic polluting wind turbines 🤔

Nuclear just isn't flexible enough for annoying, comes and goes, unreliable, the opposite of energy dense, grid disrupting "renewables"....

Yeah....this is Nuclear's fault 💩

[Marlin]

A Don Quixote gif would have worked too. I am guilty of violating my own signature line rules. Sometimes I cannot help myself, OK more than sometimes. 

 

[Ksheed]

A Don Quixote gif would have worked too. I am guilty of violating my own signature line rules. Sometimes I cannot help myself, OK more than sometimes. 

 

Well since you mentioned it, I thought I'd oblige...

[hamsamich]

Good article, really more about making the grid better, I didn't think the article was blaming nuclear as a lone scapegoat.  But I think we should keep our nuclear plants open and subsidies are a good place to start.


Allocation of subsidies in the United States

On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

    Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
    Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
    Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
    Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

    Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
    Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
    Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
    Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
    Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-12-EnergyTechnologies.pdf

I know there are other tax credit type subsidies, like fossil fuels brought into the U.S. are calculated into the billions.  And nuclear and fossil fuel R&D is into the Billions, I think recently nuclear has been more than fossil.  But R&D for fossil historically was huge (a long time ago).

The bottom line is unless you've done your homework, you can't really say whether nuclear or fossil has received more subsidies.  And then there are indirect subsidies, like how much money it will cost to clean up any pollution/damage to environment by fossil and nuclear (like fracking and nuclear waste disposal).  That is a huge debate and a huge amount of info to process.  Once again Rerun is grinding his axe to the tune of "I really don't know what I'm talking about, just running my mouth."

The entire U.S. energy situation is complex and the whole thing is subsidized, some of the subsidies are way more complex than a direct $$$ amount of money.

[hamsamich]

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-energy-consumption-one-giant-diagram/

pretty good diagram.  to me, this shows how much smaller the footprint of nuclear is when compared to our total enrgy consumption instead of just electricity generation.  tells me we should hang on to our existing nuclear plants even more so.

[Marlin]

Nice article the graphic was a bit confusing until reading the text. 

[hamsamich]

https://amp.businessinsider.com/nuclear-atomic-power-fukushima-2016-8

not alot of new ideas or info here, but puts things together on a bigger scale with estimates of how much $$$ it will cost to get rid of carbon producing power sources and how nuclear could fit into that plan.  not saying all the estimates are correct, but at that magnitude of $$$$ amount it just shows how important nuclear power could be in the future operating in tandem with renewables.  that is only if carbon reduction remains important.