wait a minute....
rod,
I am not all that familiar with the production tax credit as it is applied to nuclear and while I thought the total cut-off was on megawatt hours produced per plant, you could easily be right that it applies to total generating capacity for all new nuclear power plants produces as a kind of incentive to be one of the first plants up and running. I really don't know and if you or anyone else could point to a clarifying reliable source, it would be much appreciated.
However, to be mad about subsidizing "weak and unreliable" technologies instead of investing in reliable return technologies such as nuclear is to completely forget the history of how nuclear power came into existence and to turn the concept of subsidies on its head. How many billions of dollars for how many decades has the taxpayer footed the bill for research into nuclear energy and its commercialization, from developing nuclear submarine engines, to converting them into power plants, designing parameters for safe designs that minimize accidents and environmental contamination, and on and on? How many universities developed engineering schools based on federal grants? How many billions were spend of taxpayers money to try to address the fuel cycle, from mining, refining, producing fuel, storing spent fuel, and dealing with long term solutions? The reason that investors are easy to be swayed from investing in nuclear power has almost nothing to do with the Union of Concerned Scientists lawyers and everything to do with the take-your-breath-away gamble that investors must take to finance nuclear power despite a huge effort to try to make that investment a safe one, with federally backed loan guarantees, limits on accident liability, production tax credits, and on and on.
Now on to subsidies. It seems that these are designed to give financial stability to attract investors and users of a technology in order to grow it into a mature technology that will attract investors on its own. Nuclear energy and fossil fuels have all had massive subsidies, much more in total and much more stable over time than any of the renewables have had, and you know it. And in terms of what has actually been coming on line the past few years, do you want to compare the new coal, new nuclear and new wind generation that has been installed? It's hard to compare something with nothing, isn't it? Furthermore, the installed wind and upcoming solar is coming online at a rate that the existing grid is easily absorbing it without the much talked about issue of intermittency being a problem, with upgrades in transmission in the works to address any future issues. The Energy Information Admin. sees no insurmountable obstacle to receiving 20% of our total electrical needs by 2020 if we make it a priority.
