Subsidizing energy producers

To the Editor:

Relying on the passionately anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists, Marion Mohri objects that nuclear energy benefits from federal subsidies, and therefore Big Wind deserves its own (perpetual) subsidies to "get off the ground."

I have read the report she cites. It identifies "massive subsidies" to Big Nuclear, but close inspection reveals that the UCS has included as subsidies a very long list of provisions that either aid capital investment for any form of energy, or are simply not quantifiable.

For instance, UCS objects that nuclear plants with a 40 year lifetime were allowed depreciation over a mere 15 years. But Big Wind put into service in 2013, with a 25 year lifetime, gets to write off its capital costs over five years - with half of that taken the first year (bonus depreciation).

In addition, Big Wind cashed in a Production Tax Credit worth 2.3 cents per kwhr, a direct handout not given to any of the country's 100 nuclear plants. When this provision expires, incidentally, the Big Wind machine grinds to a complete halt until its lobbyists can persuade Congress to renew it (possibly after the November election).

UCS says using cooling water for free is a subsidy, although the water (also used in any steam generating plant) is returned to its source usually cleaner than it was when taken in.

UCS says uranium mining gets depreciation allowances - but so does any earth substance that is used up, such as iron, aluminum, oil, gas, and coal.

UCS says the Price-Anderson nuclear liability insurance, enacted in 1954 when no one had any idea what risk civilian nuclear plants might involve, is a big subsidy. UCS does not mention that in 60 years there have been zero claims paid by the government backup insurance liability. (For the record, I favor repeal of that program.)

On another point, Mrs. Mohri says I must believe that the 86% of Vermonters are "idiots" for supporting the Shumlin "90% of all energy from renewables by 2050". First, I don't accuse people who disagree with me, including Mrs. Mohri, of being "idiots."

I have not been able to locate such a poll on the web, but I daresay it asked something like "to you think it would be nice if Vermont got 90% of its energy from renewables by 2050?"

But try this question: "In order to achieve Gov. Shumlin's goal of getting 90% of the state's energy from renewable sources by 2050, would you now support an additional fifty cents a gallon gas and diesel tax, a 50 cents per gallon tax on heating oil, and a 25% increase in your electric bill, to cover the cost of the subsidies needed to enable wind and solar electricity to replace energy now generated from fossil fuels?"

Personally, I doubt that 50 cents a gallon and 25% increase in electric bills would be enough to achieve the Shumlin goal, but I would bet that Northeast Kingdom voters, at least, would not favor that proposition.

John McClaughry

Kirby, Vt.


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.