Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNuclear industry and its pols caught in another backhanded deal
To form the majority needed for the present UK government the conservatives had to ally themselves with the LibDems. Part of the deal was that since the LibDems believed that spending money on nuclear power was an impediment to the fight against climate change, and since the Conservatives were dead set on building new nuclear power, there was a compromise needed in this area. The LibDems agreed to not impede the building of nuclear plants if and only if they could be built with no subsidies. Of course, since new reactors simply cannot be built without transferring the risk to the tax/rate payers (which is a form of subsidies) the conservatives have been trying since day one to wriggle and squirm out of the deal.
Background from 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/16/coalition-support-new-nuclear-power
Here is the latest chapter in that saga...
...
The Guardian has also seen a presentation made by Scottish & Southern Energy to MPs last month, saying the plans contain "hidden subsidies", will be open to challenge on legal grounds, and could "mess up" funding for renewables. Hall commented: "I have not seen the SSE presentation but even the nuclear industry accepts this is a covert subsidy."
...
The leaked document, a submission to the European commission, which the government has confirmed as genuine, says: "Our reforms will put in place a regulatory framework based on feed-in tariffs for all low-carbon technologies, which will allow younger technologies to mature so that in the near- to mid-term future they will be able to compete in the open market in time, we expect that this regulatory framework will enable different low-carbon technologies to compete against each other on a level playing field for their appropriate role in the energy mix."
This is the clearest evidence yet of government plans to subsidise nuclear power through the back door, by classifying it with renewables as "low-carbon power", despite repeated assurances that there would be no public subsidy. In the coalition agreement subsidies to nuclear are explicitly ruled out. It said: "Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy."
The government is already facing a crisis over its hopes for a fleet of new reactors to replace ageing generators. This week French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide, to go ahead with its building plans. This followed the shock cancellation by German companies E.ON and RWE npower, partners in the Horizon consortium, of their plans to build new plants at Wylfa, Wales and Oldbury, Gloucestershire.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/coalition-u-turn-nuclear-energy-subsidies
madokie
(51,076 posts)thats the way of the nuclear power industry. On a level playing field we'd have no nuclear power plants today. I'm convinced of that.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Supporters insisted that it wasn't.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The reasoning is that nuclear generation is a mature industry that has received 60 years of heavy subsidies and has demonstrated a negative learning curve; meaning the more we learn about it the more expensive it becomes. It is not regarded as a scalable solution to climate change nor is it considered sustainable.
Renewables have received only a small fraction of the support of nuclear power over the same period but with that it has demonstrated a very strong positive learning curve with steadily declining prices. A distributed system built around renewables is unquestionably scalable but it is incompatible with a centralized thermal system and is regarded as the desired sustainable solution to climate change.
The fact that they share a single temporary characteristic (nuclear's carbon emissions would rise sharply if scaled to be a significant global energy source) does not outweigh the way the remainder of the operational characteristics of nuclear confound the path to the most effective solution to the goal of a carbon free energy infrastructure.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Supporters of the FIT insisted that it was not a public subsidy.
Do you agree or don't you?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FBaggins
(26,757 posts)The question is whether or not YOU consider it a subsidy.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Apparently you really have a problem with reading comprehension:
No one denies renewables are getting subsidies.
The reasoning is that nuclear generation is a mature industry that has received 60 years of heavy subsidies and has demonstrated a negative learning curve; meaning the more we learn about it the more expensive it becomes. It is not regarded as a scalable solution to climate change nor is it considered sustainable.
Renewables have received only a small fraction of the support of nuclear power over the same period but with that it has demonstrated a very strong positive learning curve with steadily declining prices. A distributed system built around renewables is unquestionably scalable but it is incompatible with a centralized thermal system and is regarded as the desired sustainable solution to climate change.
The fact that they share a single temporary characteristic (nuclear's carbon emissions would rise sharply if scaled to be a significant global energy source) does not outweigh the way the remainder of the operational characteristics of nuclear confound the path to the most effective solution to the goal of a carbon free energy infrastructure.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)One last chance to correct the error.
It most certainly is not "everyone else".
The reasoning is that nuclear generation is a mature industry
Right... a "mature industry" that hasn't started a new project in three decades. Industries become "mature" when they have the infrastructure to be self sustaining and benefit from whatever economies of scale are available. If you shut down the big three for 30 years, the US auto industry will no longer be a "mature industry" regardless of how much money was pumped into them over the prior decades.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Too late to back out now.
Ever heard of Peter Lynch?
http://japanfocus.org/-Peter-Lynch/3654
From a UK solar project that receives a FIT
The project will be registered under the Governments Feed-in Tariff (FIT) programme. The FIT is not a subsidy or funding from the Government but is legislation that requires energy companies to pay a guaranteed tariff for 25 years.
https://brixtonenergy.co.uk/faq/
IIRC, China and Canada have a WTO dispute going on re: a FIT that China claims is an illegitimate government subsidy... while Canada insists that it isn't a subsidy at all.
From a pair of renewables sites.
1. The Feed in Tariff (FIT) that is used in Germany does not get any funds from public taxation therefore it is not a subsidy.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/03/solar-protest-in-berlin-over-perceived-slowdown-of-renewable-energy-transition
http://www.naturallifenetwork.com/news_detail.cfm?news=259
From those advocating a FIT in NV
http://www.fit4nv.org/
From those advocating a FIT in Hawaii
Germany's groundbreaking law is not a subsidy. No tax dollars are used to bring in renewable energy.
http://www.fit-hawaii.com/
Still think everyone considers a FIT to be a government subsidy?