Alternative energy providers must sta...

Alternative energy providers must stand on own two feet

There are 13 comments on the The Tennessean story from Aug 11, 2013, titled Alternative energy providers must stand on own two feet. In it, The Tennessean reports that:

Although it has taken much longer than might have been expected, it is worth noting that the Tennessee Valley Authority belatedly has realized that doing what feels good, more often than not, can be terribly painful.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Tennessean.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1 Aug 11, 2013
Wow, what a concept!
handyman

Sunnyvale, CA

#2 Aug 12, 2013
Just like the oil,coal,gas and nuclear industries do !! Oh,you mean they don't ?? They get billions in govt. money ? Never mind......

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#3 Aug 13, 2013
Don't know about the fossil fuels you speak of, but I've yet to see a convincing argument that such accusations of subsidies apply to nuclear. In fact, it can be cogently argued that nuclear subsidizes the government, at least in the US.
masterblaster

Playa Del Carmen, Mexico

#4 Aug 13, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Don't know about the fossil fuels you speak of, but I've yet to see a convincing argument that such accusations of subsidies apply to nuclear. In fact, it can be cogently argued that nuclear subsidizes the government, at least in the US.
The government knows about it , you chose to ignore it as if it doesn't exist.
masterblaster

Monterrey, Mexico

#5 Aug 13, 2013

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#6 Aug 16, 2013
Perhaps I should have been clearer so that you wouldn't have wasted our time with irrelevancies... I don't know, AND DON'T CARE about fossil fuel subsidies. But I have yet to see convincing data that NUCLEAR is subsidized,
Solarman

La Quinta, CA

#7 Aug 17, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Perhaps I should have been clearer so that you wouldn't have wasted our time with irrelevancies... I don't know, AND DON'T CARE about fossil fuel subsidies. But I have yet to see convincing data that NUCLEAR is subsidized,
Kiteman you're deluded or just plain dishonest. Your favorite source Wikipedia has information on the nuclear industry and point out several of its subsidies. The Title 17 EPACT 2005 gives the nuclear industry PTC production tax credits. There has been since 1957 the Price-Anderson Act, giving special consideration to nuclear plants as to liability and insuring a favorable insurance rate. Like the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry gets Federal Grants, low interest loans, loan guarantees. The DOE has a "fund" for end of life costs related to the reactors. There doesn't seem to be any real limit as to how much money the taxpayer is allotting to this "fund". San Onofre could well be the first of many tests. So, Kiteman, how long has the nuclear industry been "stealing" from the taxpayer with their Federally insured loans and other tax breaks? At least since 1957.
koto

Germany

#8 Aug 18, 2013
Most private financial sources steer clear nuclear for the simple reason of liability in case of accidents. The risk is greater than the returns could ever be.
handyman

Letts, IA

#9 Aug 18, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Perhaps I should have been clearer so that you wouldn't have wasted our time with irrelevancies... I don't know, AND DON'T CARE about fossil fuel subsidies. But I have yet to see convincing data that NUCLEAR is subsidized,
You have seen it but choose not to believe it.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#10 Aug 18, 2013
Production Tax Credits are provided to MANY industries that provide important social goods. It is not a "Nuclear" subsidy. And you know, whenever I google "Production Tax Credit", I see lots and lots of listings for wind and solar PTCs, but none for nuclear. Strange, that.

The Price Anderson Act merely sets a limit on how much insurance must be provided, it doesn't eliminate liability. And since the amount has never been exceeded and due to ever increasing safety of the plants, probably never will be, there is no subsidy.

Unlike loan guarantees made to solar energy firms like solyndra, loan guarantees to nuclear plants don't involve any money from the government unless the plant doesn't go on line. With the Solyndra guarantee, the government paid all the fees and guaranteed a loan to a company that had NEVER been profitable before. For nuclear loan guarantees, the company pays EVERYTHING, and the loans go only to companies that have a VERY long history of successful business. AFAICT, no guarantees have been called on for the nuclear industry in the last thirtyish years. If no money flows out of the FedGov coffers, it is not a subsidy.
http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Economics/In...

So, yet again, people keep trying to condemn the Nuke Industry and fail to prove their case.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#11 Aug 18, 2013
handyman wrote:
<quoted text>You have seen it but choose not to believe it.
I have seen smoke and mirrors by the anti-nukes and have seen THROUGH it to the truth.
tabor

Kansas City, MO

#12 Aug 19, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Production Tax Credits are provided to MANY industries that provide important social goods. It is not a "Nuclear" subsidy. And you know, whenever I google "Production Tax Credit", I see lots and lots of listings for wind and solar PTCs, but none for nuclear. Strange, that.
The Price Anderson Act merely sets a limit on how much insurance must be provided, it doesn't eliminate liability. And since the amount has never been exceeded and due to ever increasing safety of the plants, probably never will be, there is no subsidy.
Unlike loan guarantees made to solar energy firms like solyndra, loan guarantees to nuclear plants don't involve any money from the government unless the plant doesn't go on line. With the Solyndra guarantee, the government paid all the fees and guaranteed a loan to a company that had NEVER been profitable before. For nuclear loan guarantees, the company pays EVERYTHING, and the loans go only to companies that have a VERY long history of successful business. AFAICT, no guarantees have been called on for the nuclear industry in the last thirtyish years. If no money flows out of the FedGov coffers, it is not a subsidy.
http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Economics/In...
So, yet again, people keep trying to condemn the Nuke Industry and fail to prove their case.
As was stated earlier, you won't admit or believe it. End of discussion.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#13 Aug 19, 2013
tabor wrote:
<quoted text>As was stated earlier, you won't admit or believe it. End of discussion.
You are correct, I will not admit or believe what is not true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Floridians with Solar Inverters had Electricity... 2 hr Native Floridian 17
News Energy Dept. Pledges $32 Million For Grid Resil... Mon Solarman 1
News Why Energy Storage Will Be a Boon for Residenti... Sun Solarman 1
News Trade panel says low-cost solar imports hurt US... Sun Dee Dee Dee 10
News Al Gore warns that Trump is ignoring weather ap... Sun Patriot AKA Bozo 224
News GCC's 50th Anniversary Fall Fest and homecoming... Sat Go trump 1
News Student power brings solar power to Iroquois... (Apr '10) Sep 23 why Bateman closing 4
More from around the web