Subsidies for Solar Two Times Higher Than for Nuclear in California

[wtmusic]

"

"California has spent two times more on subsidies for solar than nuclear, measured on a per-kilowatt basis, according to a new Breakthrough analysis. The finding challenges a new analysis from DBL investors, which compares nuclear to solar subsidies without accounting for the fact that nuclear generates far more electricity than solar. Comparing subsidies on a dollar-per-kWh basis is more appropriate because it gives a sense of relative effectiveness of subsidies at providing services to society, in this case electricity provision.

Using DBL’s subsidy estimates, the cost-per-kWh of nuclear power and distributed solar in California between 1963-1967 and 2007-2011, is 60 cents and 48 cents, respectively. Using a more appropriate subsidy estimate, however, Breakthrough found the cost-per-kWh of distributed solar over 2007-2011 is 1.2 dollars, two times greater than nuclear. Using DBL’s subsidy estimates, the cost-per-kWh of recent nuclear power generation (2007-2011) is about a tenth of a cent (not included in graph).

The DBL report finds that for the first five years of commercial nuclear operation in California, 1963-1967, generators received about $1.85 billion in subsidies (2012 dollars), compared to the $1.7 billion (2012 dollars) that distributed solar generation received between 2007 and 2011. Even though nuclear only received $150 million more, the authors strangely conclude that nuclear received four times the subsidy.1 Based on these results the report concludes that policy should be doing more for distributed renewable energy."

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/subsidies-for-solar-two-times-higher-than-for-nuclear-in-california

[kristopher]

1. That's the Nuclear Industry engaging in Data Trimming again...

Data trimming is the act of excluding relevant data to obtain a more favorable analysis. It is the lynchpin of the nuclear industry's strategy for lying about their product.

Report: Nuclear Received 4 Times More Subsidies Than Solar in CA

“Federal dollars per new megawatt-hour for distributed solar are infinitely lower.”
HERMAN K. TRABISH: AUGUST 28, 2013

California’s nuclear energy industry has received four times more federal support than the state’s distributed solar builders over a period six times as long, according to a new report.

“California’s nuclear power suppliers have benefited from over $8.21 billion (in 2012 dollars) in subsidization over the last half century,” according to the report Ask Saint Onofrio: Finding What Has Been Lost in a Tale of Two Energy Sources by Nancy E. Pfund and Noah W. Walker of Silicon Valley venture capital firm DBL Investors.

Distributed solar systems, they found, have earned $2.17 billion in tax credits or direct payments through 2012 from the federal investment tax credit (ITC) and the 1603 Treasury Grant programs, which began in 2007.

The 56-year-old Price-Anderson Act’s liability protection for nuclear plant operators and tax breaks for the decommissioning trust fund earnings together account for an estimated $164.1 million in annual federal support.

The legislators who passed the Price-Anderson Act expected it to sunset after ten years, yet it is authorized through 2020, Pfund, DBL’s Managing Partner, observed. “Federal subsidies were necessary and highly effective for the early growth of the nuclear industry,” she explained. But they have become “a perpetuity.”

...


The return on taxpayers’ investments are starkly different, the report noted. The 2,200-megawatt San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station failed in 2011 and was permanently taken offline this year. Attempted repairs have cost ratepayers $670 million, and a further $4.1 billion will be passed on to them for decommissioning.

...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Report-Nuclear-Received-4-Times-More-Subsidies-in-CA-Than-Solar?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[msongs]

2. nuclear is obsolete despite what its relentless PR spokespersons claim nt

[shadowmayor]

3. horsepucky!

A big bucket of donkey fazoo for you!

Never, and I mean never in these pro-nuke discussions is the truth about the subsidies the industry receives in the form of insurance mentioned. The truth is, in the event of a catastrophe, the public will pay for the damages and the clean-up, not to mention the exposure and sickness. Privatized profit and socialized cost. These issues are sometimes relegated to externalities or indirect cost/benefit ratios, but the fact remains, the industry cannot insure itself. The costs associated with nuclear disaster are simply too high.

How much radiation is coming from the uranium mine tailings and piles left by the nuclear industry? How many incidents and accidents are never revealed or covered up? Conversely, how many people will be poisoned when the "Taliban or al Qaeda or the Syrians" blows up my solar panels?

Our country and our planet should subsidize solar energy more; much, much more!

[wtmusic]

4. You'd have to actually read the article to know what you're talking about

and you obviously didn't (and don't):

"One of the troubling aspects of the report is its unequal treatment of nuclear subsidies and distributed solar subsidies. While the report includes comprehensive estimates of nuclear subsidies (R&D, regulatory costs, costs associated with the federal Price-Anderson Act, and costs associated with decommissioning trust funds), it does not include comprehensive subsidies for distributed solar."

Not only does Price-Anderson cover nuclear for excessive liability to $12 billion, but every nuke plant carries a comprehensive independent insurance policy.

"Mandatory financial coverage means that the operator must maintain insurance cover, and it ensures that funds will be made available by the operator or their insurers to pay for damages. The minimum amount of protection required is set by national laws which in turn often depend on international treaty obligations. Over time the amount of this mandatory protection has increased, partially adjusting for inflation and partially allowing for an increased burden of responsibility to be passed on to nuclear operators."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Your whole post is donkey fazoo - and welcome to DU!

[shadowmayor]

6. The Price-Anderson false argument

The mandatory insurance funds and the P-A Act requirements don't even come close to covering the costs associated with a catastrophic failure. Should a plant suffer a severe incident, from flooding, failing upstream dams, earthquakes, human error, equipment failure etc. and the fallout affect a large urban population, the costs would easily reach into the tens, if not hundreds of billions. The first payout of more than $20B would exceed the total fund required by the P-A Act. My only point was that above the regular discussions about costs and subsidies, the true insurance note and the true cost of failure is borne by the people and not the industry responsible. The comprehensive insurance policy carried by each nuke plant is not sufficient to cover the costs associated with a catastrophe. That is the truth, and the remainder is a subsidy which is again, not covered in many of these discussions.

Thanks for your input.

[wtmusic]

7. Your assumption of risk has zero basis in reality.

Do you think these people are amateurs? They perform comprehensive statistical analysis for a living, and Price Anderson has never - including Three Mile Island - had to pay out one dime. Yet you end your linkless, unsupported opinion in typical antinuke fashion, with the proclamation "that is the truth".

Whatever you say, boss.

[shadowmayor]

8. Reality

Reality is Fukushima. Reality is Chernobyl.

I speaking to the greater costs and greater dangers.

[wtmusic]

11. That's your reality.

When lots of really smart people disagree with you, perhaps it's time to re-assess.

This is reality, believe what you want.

"In 2007 the US NRC launched a research program to assess the possible consequences of a serious reactor accident. Its draft report was released nearly a year after the Fukushima accident had partly confirmed its findings. The State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequences Analysis (SOARCA) showed that a severe accident at a US nuclear power plant (PWR or BWR) would not be likely to cause any immediate deaths, and the risks of fatal cancers would be vastly less than the general risks of cancer. SOARCA's main conclusions fall into three areas: how a reactor accident progresses; how existing systems and emergency measures can affect an accident's outcome; and how an accident would affect the public's health. The principal conclusion is that existing resources and procedures can stop an accident, slow it down or reduce its impact before it can affect the public, but even if accidents proceed without such mitigation they take much longer to happen and release much less radioactive material than earlier analyses suggested. This was borne out at Fukushima, where there was ample time for evacuation – 3 days - before any significant radioactive releases.

A different safety philosophy: Early Soviet-designed reactors

The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the result of major design deficiencies in the RBMK type of reactor, the violation of operating procedures and the absence of a safety culture. One peculiar feature of the RBMK design was that coolant failure could lead to a strong increase in power output from the fission process ( positive void coefficient). However, this was not the prime cause of the Chernobyl accident.

The accident destroyed the reactor and killed 56 people, 28 of whom died within weeks from radiation exposure. It also caused radiation sickness in a further 200-300 staff and firefighters, and contaminated large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond. It is estimated that at least 5% of the total radioactive material in the Chernobyl-4 reactor core was released from the plant, due to the lack of any containment structure. Most of this was deposited as dust close by. Some was carried by wind over a wide area.

About 130,000 people received significant radiation doses (i.e. above internationally accepted ICRP limits) and continue to be monitored. About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer in children have been linked to the accident. Most of these were curable, though about nine were fatal. No increase in leukaemia or other cancers have yet shown up, but some is expected. The World Health Organisation is closely monitoring most of those affected."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UiLMk7ya3nA

"• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power.
• As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.
• There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.
• The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UiLPALya3nA

[shadowmayor]

13. I am not such a firm believer

wt,

You do realize that there are some serious criticisms of the SOARCA report and that the NRC has a far from spotless record. Yes a lot of serious people with great skill spend a great deal of effort analyzing these things, and I'm glad they do. I however, do not for a minute doubt the political slants and propaganda from all sides.

I don't trust these plants because they were designed by people, built by people, inspected by people, and run by people - many of whom are flawed in ways too numerous to describe.

And finally, for all of their models it's sometimes best to never forget that a model is just that - a best guess. Or in other words: modeling is a lot like masturbation, a generally harmless activity that should never be mistaken for the real thing.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!

[wtmusic]

14. Modeling is the real thing.

You model from the moment you wake up until you fall asleep, every day. You assign risks based on your current knowledge to go about your life so that you minimize harm to yourself, while still achieving your objectives.

While there is propaganda from all sides, whether it's from the maker of our breakfast cereal or the car we drive, it doesn't eliminate the requirement for making the most accurate assessment of risk possible - not the most dire one.

I ate my Wheaties this morning, even though the manufacturer's process was designed by flawed people, built by flawed people, inspected by flawed people, and run by flawed people.

[kristopher]

9. The Breakthrough Institute is a shill for ALEC

They pretend to environmental concerns (just like ALEC) and produce wagonloads of goal oriented "analysis" designed to preserve business as usual practices and policies.

Hardly surprising that wt embraces their output.

ALEC's Energy Climate Agenda: ProFossil, ProNuclear, AntiRenewable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101672224

Breakthrough Institute does the full Charlie Sheen: After months of attacking clean energy standards and efficiency, now they flip-flop to defense
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/16/207705/breakthrough-institute-full-charlie-sheen-energy-efficiency-standards/

Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, and top climate scientists
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/06/17/204250/the-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-waxman-markey/

Rebound effect: The Breakthrough Institute’s attack on clean energy backfires
Top energy experts debunk their false assertions and misleading statements about energy efficiency
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/15/207530/the-breakthrough-institute-attack-energy-efficiency-clean-energy-backfire-rebound-effect/

Supposed "Environmentalists" at Breakthrough Institute taken to woodshed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112747297

Or this:

Breakthrough Institute gets it wrong on climate economics — again

Why do those at the Breakthrough Institute insist that everyone else besides them who cares about the environment is wrong, wrong, wrong? Their latest, called “The Creative Destruction of Climate Economics,” is a swipe at those misguided souls who think putting a price on carbon emissions would help combat climate change.

Breakthrough, according to its website, aims “to modernize liberal-progressive-green politics” and to accelerate the transition to an “ecologically vibrant” future. It “broke through” into well-funded fame in 2003 with its attack on environmentalists for failing to emphasize the economic concerns of ordinary Americans, such as jobs — thereby alienating the major environmental groups, who had been talking about jobs and the environment for years.

What’s wrong with pricing carbon emissions? This particular breakthrough rests on a mistaken reading of an academic paper in the American Economic Review, the most prestigious outlet for mainstream economics. That paper develops a simplified, abstract model of an economy that generates carbon emissions. Unlike some climate economics models, it assumes that public policy can affect the pace of innovation. Its conclusion, in the authors’ own words, seems quite balanced..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=43813

[shadowmayor]

10. Howdy Kristopher

I don't mind mashing it up with wt. I find it a bit amusing and certainly disingenuous that the fundamental point I brought - that the nuke industry is making private profits with the costs to be covered by the public - is the biggest subsidy out there is undeniable. Usually these folks nibble around the edges and talk about the paltry insurance notes that nuke plants are forced to carry, but that doesn't change the facts. And wt, links aren't needed to make this point.

Much the same holds true for the petroleum industry. How much would a gallon gasoline cost in the US without all the subsidies and breaks etc.?

What scares the hell out of wall street and the filthy bankers is the idea that each of us could become energy producers and not just consumers. There is a lot of big bucks at stake here. I seriously doubt we invaded Iraq because they had too many photons or rutabagas.

[kristopher]

12. What is undeniable to you

Is perfectly deniable to wt. There is no sense of shame attached to the campaign he's waging and there is a consequent lack of rigor in his assessments and selection of material to post.
There is a strategy you should perhaps be aware of - he posts rather outrageous headlines that are designed to either portray nuclear favorably or renewables unfavorably. The date/logic/analysis of these posts are almost invariably flawed to the point of absurdity, but the goal seems to be to get the headline up and keep it kicked to the top of the page. There is a sound logic to that since few will actually be able to make an informed judgement on the merits of his claims and most will just remember the content of the headline.

Do with that what you will.

ETA
P.S. - Welcome to DU EE forum.

[kestrel91316]

5. I doubt that very much, lol. But that would be awesome.