Thanks for the info. I did some more research and found out that Nuclear Power was indeed not subsidized from 1985 to 2000, but after 2000 some nuclear subsidies seem to have been created. However, while over 20% of the electricity in the US is produced by nuclear plants, only 1% of energy subsidies goes to nuclear, which looks like is approximately on par with subsidies for fossil fuel power.
I don't think we should be subsidizing power (or most things) but it seems disingenuous for an article to claim that nuclear power isn't viable because it gets subsidies, even tho fossil fuel gets at least as much subsidies per mwh as nuclear.
To be fair, other forms of electricity generation are heavily subsidized as well. In fact, this is probably a large part in why nuclear needs subsidies in order to compete, as nuclear power receives very little of the total energy subsidies, at least in the US. [1]
You’re right that I should have been citing my sources. I’ve been largely relying on the book Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. It’s well worth reading.
The (decade old) source you provided for energy subsidies appears somewhat dishonest, as the date ranges appear cherry picked. Why is it that the source only looks at nuclear subsidies up until 1999, while subsidies to other energy sources are considered through 2009?
The choice of units in this source is also odd. What have the subsidies been in terms of energy output? At its peak, nuclear was producing some 16-20% of US power. I imagine normalizing on a $/MWh basis could paint a different picture.
Looking at a more recent source [0], it appears that recent nuclear subsidies have been marginal and are far outpaced by renewable subsidies. If we consider prior subsidies a sunk cost, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to subsidize a new, less environmentally friendly, source of energy when our best in class is already excellent.
Every time the fact nuclear power is subsidized is being brought up, I can't help but think of how much energy, in general, is highly subsidized, like other fossils and renewables. What makes it special in the case of nuclear?
Currently the most subsidized energy is fossil fuels. My own government is a very vocal about climate change, but they still pay millions in order for fossil fuel plants to stand ready in case demand exceeds that of the production from wind.
I understand people dislike when nuclear get subsidies, but its nowhere as bad as the amount of subsidies we pay right now to fossil fuels. We need to stop throwing money at fossil fuels. I rather have my tax money go to batteries or nuclear than fossil fuels disguised as "reserve energy".
Where I live there are no subsidies for nuclear, as the country is far too developed for that technology and now relies on coal, together with some seasonal sun and wind.
Wind and solar also have large subsidies right now, although the subsidies are decreasing. Nuclear should have been given the same chance as the other carbon-free forms of energy: subsidize it on its way up the S-curve, then drop subsidies after the technology is mature.
Whether subsidies are a good idea or not in general for nuclear is an interesting question. The article states that the current plan is to give production tax credits - tax credits for energy produced. Such a subsidy, which does not help mitigate the up front capital costs, would therefore not really address the root problem in the US.
To the more general question though: subsidies are to incentivize people (or companies) to do a thing (or do more of a thing). In the case of nuclear power, the timelines involved in building a power plant are so long, and given the uncertainty of having the same tax credits staying in place for long enough to impact financial plans, it seems unlikely that it would actually have the effect we'd want on nuclear power production.
I'm not at all implying that they haven't been subsidized. I'm implying that, unlike the nuclear subsidies, A) those subsidies were good value for money and B) these technologies are viable without subsidies, which nuclear isn't.
>But no power source has been as subsidized as roof-top solar.
This simply isn't true. Rooftop solar has been slammed with heavy import tariffs ever since Obama and while feed in tariffs have been generous in the past they haven't been generous for some years now.
And nuclear, oil, coal were never subsidized? It's not like most of these huge power plants were built with gov money ,right? It's not like we spent billions to protect our interests in places that have abundance of oil, but lack of stability. It's not like we subsidize coal industry, farming and other part of the economy, right?
Without subsidies, civilian nuclear would not exist and we'd have a lot less oil and gas supplies. Exploration subsidies for oil and gas have doubled in the last five years in the US.
edit - energy production is always subsidised in wealthy countries, as energy security is key to national security, so it would be stupid not to.
No, it's not with subsidies. Are you quoting RESIDENTIAL solar there? I was talking about utility-scale solar, which is the relevant thing to compare against nuclear.
I don't know what you're reading but it clearly states unsubsidized wind in the second graph (which has the same value as the first graph).
Regarding subsididies while it does not receive the most subsidies now nuclear has received 66% of the R&D and demonstration subsidies from 1974-2007 in the EU. It still receives about half of what solar receives [1]. So despite it having received much more subsidies previously its still not viable.
Even before that the subsidies for solar have been dwarfed by the subsidies that are in place for nuclear power. Recently in Germany the nuclear companies' lobbyists managed to get rif of the problem of end storage of nuclear waste by shifting that burden to the general public. Great job!
The US government heavily subsidizes oil and has heavily subsidized nuclear as well. Both were choices for strategic reasons, to be independent in sources of energy (and to have nukes).
Preventing climate change and becoming independent from non-renewables seems like a worthwhile strategic goal to me, too.
And these are only the active subsidies. We're not even talking about the externalities.
The definition of what is and is not a subsidies is extremely difficult to agree on, but many studies show renewable subsidies are large relative to fossil fuel subsidies. From Wikipedia:
"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:
(If you add in more items than the CBO does, you'll get different numbers, but this rapidly gets problematic. For example, in the US, R&D spending is not taxed, and can be deducted from gross revenue before calculating a tax bill. For some people, that means that the US subsidizes R&D for fossil fuel research, but since the US subsidies all R&D, I don't feel like this qualifies as a specific subsidy to fossil fuels. If you disagree, then renewable and fosssil fuel subsidies start to look more even, but nuclear subsidies dwarf both of them.)
And remember, "renewable" energy is really natural gas supplemented by wind and solar. There's no plan for a 100% renewable grid until some massive breakthrough in energy storage happens.
I don't think we should be subsidizing power (or most things) but it seems disingenuous for an article to claim that nuclear power isn't viable because it gets subsidies, even tho fossil fuel gets at least as much subsidies per mwh as nuclear.
reply