|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jul 1, 2013 10:15:38 GMT 9.5
@sod:
Renewables wouldn't exist in the large scale they do now without a subsidy that is primarily a Feed-in-Tariff which is passed onto the consumer and government mandated targets.
Like it or not all energy sources require a subsidy, mostly because electricity is a public good, and it is useful for a government to subsidies activities that provide a public good.
As I have shown above in the country with the largest concentration of Nuclear reactors (United States) they provide a lower subsidy than Fossil and Renewable energy over the past 36 years.
These subsidies are a fact published by an independent government auditor on the body that provides the subsidies (DoE) and not regurgitated through a Union of Concerned Scientists filter to trash Nuclear Power because they have a policy against it.
Lets go to the original sources.
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jul 2, 2013 10:54:56 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 2, 2013 22:35:24 GMT 9.5
@sod: Renewables wouldn't exist in the large scale they do now without a subsidy that is primarily a Feed-in-Tariff which is passed onto the consumer and government mandated targets. I do agree with this! i also agree. sorry, but i strongly disagree with this assessment. What you have shown, is a limited view. you disregard important forms of subsidies.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 2, 2013 22:38:04 GMT 9.5
again: nuclear is demanding exactly the same level of subsidies, as onshore wind will get. big solar is only 15% more, in cloudy Britain! Sorry, but theses economics are a disaster for nuclear!
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 3, 2013 2:30:02 GMT 9.5
What you have shown, is a limited view. you disregard important forms of subsidies. Such as? A limited view is actually less favourable to nuclear than a fuller view as a limited view ignores the cost of over-regulation which is very much a subsidy, to the competitors of nuclear.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 3, 2013 4:30:50 GMT 9.5
What you have shown, is a limited view. you disregard important forms of subsidies. Such as? A limited view is actually less favourable to nuclear than a fuller view as a limited view ignores the cost of over-regulation which is very much a subsidy, to the competitors of nuclear. The PDF which we are discussing here gives a detailed list on Page 24 (pdf page). The UK example i gave above shows, that nuclear power is still getting massive subsidies (10 billion pound loan guarantee!!!!) which simply are not called a subsidy. your claim of "overregulation" is obviously false. A simple look at a place called Fukushima should do. Regulation was not strong enough to prevent a nuclear accident, neither could it force the company to pay for the damaged it caused!
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 3, 2013 6:12:38 GMT 9.5
The UK example i gave above shows, that nuclear power is still getting massive subsidies (10 billion pound loan guarantee!!!!) which simply are not called a subsidy. Loan guarantees aren't subsidies if they never get paid (say, because the power plant is allowed to be built and operated), they also wouldn't be needed if it weren't for the anti-nuclear movement. your claim of "overregulation" is obviously false. A simple look at a place called Fukushima should do. Regulation was not strong enough to prevent a nuclear accident, neither could it force the company to pay for the damaged it caused! You know, if you want to say it isn't regulated enough you should use a fatal accident as your example and you also need to compare tit with the fatal accidents of other energy sources, it is a fact that nuclear is safer than almost anything else and given that fact it is not possible to say that nuclear is under-regulated unless you think every other energy source is under-regulated to at least the same degree.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Jul 4, 2013 20:04:10 GMT 9.5
Anon said: "Loan guarantees aren't subsidies if they never get paid (say, because the power plant is allowed to be built and operated), they also wouldn't be needed if it weren't for the anti-nuclear movement."
In the past, each central government has provided the capital or the loan guarantee for each large single nuclear power station. This has made the central governments politically vulnerable, having provided a big target for the fearful and those who resent big government.
An eventual roll-out of mass produced nuclear power stations might be more palatable if local leadership were to take over the responsibility of making sure that "the plant is allowed to be built and operated". Perhaps if the initial capital were provided by the central government, while penalties for delays in construction were paid to the manufacturer by the local government, then the local government might be that much more energetic in persuading local people not to be afraid – or misled.
|
|
|
Post by SOD on Jul 7, 2013 4:58:11 GMT 9.5
Loan guarantees aren't subsidies if they never get paid (say, because the power plant is allowed to be built and operated), they also wouldn't be needed if it weren't for the anti-nuclear movement. So, will you give a guarantee to my loans? (i promise, i will not call upon it!) Of course this is a subsidy, as the company will pay much lower interest rates, with the sate backup. And they also can use this commitment to force the state into more support. There is absolutely no reason, why nuclear power should get such support today! Fukushima caused a massive financial loss to both the company, the country and the people. Whether there are any fatalities (which will happen) doesn t matter.
|
|
|
Post by grlcowan on Jul 7, 2013 11:51:10 GMT 9.5
... In the past, each central government has provided the capital or the loan guarantee for each large single nuclear power station... I doubt that. I seem to recall, among others, cancellations of the Washington Public Power Supply System reactor projects, and investors who lost big. I don't recall hearing that they had any loan guarantees to fall back on. SOD says, No, there is: if a government red-tapes to death, or by treating "intervenors" with undue respect delays to death, a nuclear project whose loans it has guaranteed, it will lose about as much, paying off those loans, as it gains in fossil fuel royalty and/or excise tax revenue from the power stations that run in its stead. So the government has no financial motivation to do those things. If it has not been forced to give those guarantees, it can do those things and be in clover. Its senior civil servants can wring their hands over "public irrationality" all the way to the bank. As I suspect many have done.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 7, 2013 12:20:23 GMT 9.5
So, will you give a guarantee to my loans? (i promise, i will not call upon it!) Of course this is a subsidy, as the company will pay much lower interest rates, with the sate backup. And they also can use this commitment to force the state into more support. There is absolutely no reason, why nuclear power should get such support today! Had the anti-nuclear movement never existed that last line would be true, but the anti-nuclear movement does exist and has caused over-regulation along with the intervenor delays (rare, but has affected some plants). Fukushima caused a massive financial loss to both the company, the country and the people. Whether there are any fatalities (which will happen) doesn t matter. The loss to the country and people came more from the over-reaction than from the actual accident and the loss to the company is their problem. BTW: Do you regard air travel as safe?
|
|