Ned Ford challenges the per kW-hr renewables subsidy quoted in the environmentalist's letter, but doesn't state what he thinks the actual per kW-hr subsidy is. Instead, he launches into a discussion of absolute subsidy amounts. This is an example of intellectual dishonesty. It's the per kW-hr subsidy that matters. If the (proposed) absolute nuclear subsidies are larger than those given to renewables, despite a much smaller per kW-hr subsidy, that tells you just how much non-polluting electricity these plants are generating, vs. all renewable energy in the state. That large amount of non-polluting generation is something of large, tangible value, and the market should reflect that.
Ford goes on to make three laughably false statements. First, that spending only $265 million on conservation would save more electricity than these plants generate. Second, that keeping these nuclear plants open would be the MOST expensive means of reducing CO2 emissions. And third, that renewable energy could provide most of the state's power, despite their intermittentcy limitations.
How about putting those assertions to a genuine market test (as opposed to having policies that give huge subsidies to renewables only, and/or outright mandates for renewables use, regardless of cost)? That is, either give nuclear the same treatment as renewables (same subsidies, inclusion in mandates), or eliminate all such subsidies and mandates, and instead put a tax/price on CO2 emissions and air pollution, and let the market decide how to respond. (In essence that's all that the environmentalists' letter was requesting, i.e., to give nuclear similar treatment as renewables). If we did have such an even handed policy, I'm not sure that new nuclear plants would be built, but I can assure you that existing plants would not be closing.
The truth, contrary to Ford's Orwellian (180-degrees-false) statement, is that keeping existing nuclear plants operating is the *least* expensive means of CO2 emissions reduction you will find. Evidence of this is the fact that these plants are only requesting 1-2 cents/kW-hr subsidy, whereas renewables projects get much higher overall subsidies than that.
Again, a genuine market test, which allows nuclear and renewables to compete on a fair playing field, would show which is the cheaper option. Such enlightened policies (i.e., putting a price on CO2 and pollution and letting the market respond) would also give conservation its full due, as the resulting increase in electricity cost would provide the proper incentive to conserve. Finally, under such a policy, the market would determine how much renewables could be added before their intermittentcy results in costs that make them uncompetitive with other clean energy options.
Recent Comments
Ford goes on to make three laughably false statements. First, that spending only $265 million on conservation would save more electricity than these plants generate. Second, that keeping these nuclear plants open would be the MOST expensive means of reducing CO2 emissions. And third, that renewable energy could provide most of the state's power, despite their intermittentcy limitations.
How about putting those assertions to a genuine market test (as opposed to having policies that give huge subsidies to renewables only, and/or outright mandates for renewables use, regardless of cost)? That is, either give nuclear the same treatment as renewables (same subsidies, inclusion in mandates), or eliminate all such subsidies and mandates, and instead put a tax/price on CO2 emissions and air pollution, and let the market decide how to respond. (In essence that's all that the environmentalists' letter was requesting, i.e., to give nuclear similar treatment as renewables). If we did have such an even handed policy, I'm not sure that new nuclear plants would be built, but I can assure you that existing plants would not be closing.
The truth, contrary to Ford's Orwellian (180-degrees-false) statement, is that keeping existing nuclear plants operating is the *least* expensive means of CO2 emissions reduction you will find. Evidence of this is the fact that these plants are only requesting 1-2 cents/kW-hr subsidy, whereas renewables projects get much higher overall subsidies than that.
Again, a genuine market test, which allows nuclear and renewables to compete on a fair playing field, would show which is the cheaper option. Such enlightened policies (i.e., putting a price on CO2 and pollution and letting the market respond) would also give conservation its full due, as the resulting increase in electricity cost would provide the proper incentive to conserve. Finally, under such a policy, the market would determine how much renewables could be added before their intermittentcy results in costs that make them uncompetitive with other clean energy options.