Removing subsidies for the fossil fuel and nuclear generators creates a hopeful renewable future

Californian’s have an unprecedented economic opportunity to replace aging nuclear power plants with clean and reliable energy generation. Three sources are cited below and offer great hope that a cleaner non-nuclear energy future is on the horizon.

In a 2004 report: Assessing the Costs of Electricity, by Daniel Kammen and Sergio Pacca the author’s state:

A recent review found that fossil-based energy receives the majority of federal subsidies followed by nuclear power…since 1948 the U.S. Department of Energy has spent over $110 billion on R&D, and over 80% of this has subsidized the nuclear and fossil fuel sectors.

On the basis of a damage assessment, which does not take into account health effects, done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC), it was concluded in 1990 that after the 1988 amendments [of the Price Anderson Bill] the total amount of subside for the nuclear industry would reach $21,411,000 (in 1985 dollars) per facility.

As of 2003 the annual subsidy [for nuclear energy] totals at least $6.6 billion

Contrast the subsidies for renewable generation, in which “The ratio between subsidies to fossil fuels and renewable sources is at least 10:1.”

The report concludes: The methods available today to assess and compare the cost of energy are beginning to capture a range of social and environmental costs of energy, as well as the risk premiums that we need to pay for different supply as well as conservation options. The next important steps are, first, to utilize life-cycle and other integrative methods in our financial analyses and, second, to bridge the gap between engineering and financial assessments of the prices of energy services, and the wider social and environmental benefits, as well as costs of different power options.

According to a recent article by Patrick Doherty, Senior Editor, TomPiane.com and reprinted in the April 2005 Santa Lucian:

In December 2004, previously uncommitted centrists embraced the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy Agenda calling for 15% reductions in oil consumption by 2025;

The Rocky Mountain Institute mapped a path to reduce oil consumption by 76% by 2025 and 100 shortly thereafter – using technology to increase energy efficiency and shift to renewable energy sources;

Wind turbines already allow rural communities to buy a town-sized wind farm and make money when they sell excess power back to the grid;

As solar cells become more efficient, middle-class homes and urban rooftops could be generating – and selling-their own electricity.

Another perspective on increasing opportunities for a new energy future appeared in The Nation, by Matt Bivens. The article disclosed:

Wind is the fastest-growing energy industry in the world, and last year was the US wind-power industry's best ever, with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six coal-fired power plants coming online--minus coal's pollution.

The good news is that wind power and other renewables don't have to depend on federal leadership. An energy revolution of wind, solar and clean-burning hydrogen fuels is fast approaching--thanks to engineers and entrepreneurs, farsighted state governments and business realities: Renewables have been steadily dropping in price.

Solar power is equally bountiful: The Union of Concerned Scientists says 100 square miles in Nevada could produce enough solar electricity to power the nation.

Germany has harnessed a world-leading 6,000 megawatts of wind power--roughly equal to twenty coal-fired power plants--and has decided to phase out nuclear power entirely by 2025. Japan and Germany are putting photovoltaic solar panels on thousands of roofs, while Spain and the Philippines last year agreed to bring solar electricity to 400,000 rural Filipinos. A similar program has been under way in South Africa since 1999, with Nelson Mandela's vocal support. And Ireland just announced what will be the world's largest offshore wind park.