The availability of cheap natural gas in the United States has stalled the construction of new nuclear plants. While four new nuclear plants are under construction in the US, many of the proposed 15 – 20 new plants were put on “hold” pending either an increase in electricity demand or increase in the price of natural gas. However, nuclear remains the largest source of emissions-free power in the U.S. at 19% of total electricity generation.
The question posed for this dialogue is whether there is a justifiable reason to build new nuclear plants to provide base load power, despite the price differential, to help reduce emissions from fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal).
Should there be an environmental subsidy provided for nuclear energy similar to that for renewables to encourage new nuclear construction? Is the dominance of natural gas in new electric generating plants a sound energy policy and what should policymakers do to encourage new nuclear construction?
Absolutely. There needs to be more research dollars for GenIV reactor design and materials development. But most of all, there must be increased loan guarantees, upwards of $100 billion, which… Read more »
Research dollars, yes. A carbon tax to level playing field, yes. But no direct subsidies. And I think cooling water use should be taxed or charged for in a realistic… Read more »
With all due respect to Andy, who I have not seen in some time, this proposal is absurd. As I understand the imperative, it’s to cut emissions in hopes of… Read more »
Nuclear power not withstanding, Mr. Maloney makes the point that we can not afford any subsidies for anything which has some appeal on a certain level. Subsidies distort the market… Read more »
Andy correctly extracts my point that the best energy policy is one that does not consist of uncontrolled market experiments. So, let’s make note that Andy and I agree to… Read more »
We do not need nuclear power as we move forward in the 21st Century. Renewables such as wind and solar will do just fine to replace fossil fuels, particularly if carbon… Read more »
R. Howarth states: “Renewables such as wind and solar will do just fine to replace fossil fuels…”, then goes on to reference Mark Jacobson, who is little more than a… Read more »
Other energy generators do get subsidies. However, one of the most damaging accusations made against nuclear power is that it was so heavily subsidized while all the alternatives were left out.… Read more »
Professor Rosen – You make a compelling argument for shutting down the Energy Politburo in its entirety. Since the Federal Government is insolvent and running a negative balance, the best… Read more »
Partner Maloney – – Price-Anderson was originally set up because the insurance companies ha no experience on how to base premiums and Ralph Nader threatened to sue all nuclear utilities… Read more »
Mr. Rosen: I have a differing read of the history. After the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was passed, the Eisenhower Administration reached out to utilities to participate in demonstration… Read more »
The question posed is sort of off-the-mark. The first question should be – will nuclear energy receive benefits out of EPA’s mercury rule and upcoming EPA rule under 111b to… Read more »
I would beg to differ with Scott Sklar on dismissing nuclear as a poor environmental option due to its life cycle carbon costs. There have been many studies debunking this… Read more »
Anything that can be done to make these plants more efficient and safer should be funded. While I am not a fan of nuclear power I believe that at least… Read more »
All for funding every pet project. Let’s begin with those who propose to fund — every organization and individual in favor of subsidizing nuclear power should donate 10% of their… Read more »
I’ve been looking at energy subsidies for quite some years, including rather detailed reviews of government support to nuclear (see this link, for example). I think Andy Kadak has framed… Read more »
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
Robert Heinlein
Stephen, While the subject is the appropriateness of government spending for nuclear power I think we can have this dialogue without quite so much anti-government demagoguery. You believe in… Read more »
There are two reasons for considering environmental subsidies for nuclear power. The first is that nuclear power is a source of low-carbon electricity. The second reason was succinctly captured by… Read more »
As a participant in the MIT Future of Nuclear Energy study, I am well aware of the economic assumptions made at the time. It is clear that the capital cost… Read more »
There are a few key problems with Andy’s framing of nuclear subsidies. First, he defines them as “giving taxpayer money for a public purpose.” Subsidies may be cash transfers; often… Read more »
In the mid-Nineties, the first two GE-designed Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR) were built in Japan by Hitachi and Toshiba. Time to build: 36 and 39 months (and remember, there… Read more »
A dangerous energy source that should be phased out for three good reasons 1- handling of radioactive waste requires a human system to work perfectly for ten thousand years and… Read more »
Just a quick comment on the statements: 1. Disposal of nuclear waste does not require human perfection. The reliance is on geological formations that have been stable for millions of… Read more »
Jasper: 1) Those who understand nuclear technologies know that so-called “nuclear waste” can be recycled and used in fast reactors, with the actual waste’s radiotoxicity (in an inert form, by… Read more »
I may have this wrong, as have not looked at it recently, but isn’t there a production based tax credit for new nuclear facilities through 2021? Kind of the like… Read more »
Yes, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided for a $ 200/kw production tax credit for first movers. It also provided for loan guarantees. Unfortunately the way the government administered… Read more »
Again, I’ve got to disagree on the way Andy has characterized nuclear subsidies — this time on the failure of Title 17 loans. The program is for loan guarantees, but… Read more »
Attorney Hinckley – I share your concern about rantings in matters of energy policy. But as you are no doubt aware, much of what passes for policy is demagoguery –… Read more »
Stephen, Let me preface this by saying we are eager for willing engagement on meaningfully energy policy discussions from as diverse a set of viewpoints as possible. With that said… Read more »
Attorney Hinckley – Thank you for explaining the ground rules. I don’t recall diving into the country’s inability to mange its debt beyond a high level reference to the utter… Read more »
In her 2006 book “Nuclear Power is Not the Answer”, Helen Caldicott puts forth a number of arguments for opposing nuclear power development: nuclear power is not clean energy and… Read more »
Sorry for the delay in replying but I wanted to find independent sources to refute Caldicott’s false claims. In doing so I found several. Since she is from Australia and… Read more »
Mr. Goldberg, I fear that further investigation into Ms. Caldicott would likely embarrass you for having written about her as someone worth listening to. May I suggest that you tune… Read more »