by repealing incentives for renewable technologies. Pennsylvania’s program, if enacted, would cost more than $500 million per year, all paid for by ratepayers. That is quadruple the cost of the state’s existing alternative-energy procurement mandate. In total, these state programs’ costs run into billions of dollars—in addition to what these nuclear generators are already being paid from the sale of their energy on the open market.
But the contention that nuclear facilities might close without subsidies is dubious. Indeed, the argument is contradicted by the most recent available market data. It is true that wholesale power prices have fallen 40 percent over roughly a decade in North America’s largest electricity market, known as PJM, from Illinois to Maryland.
In my conversations with state officials, some have struggled to understand how this has emerged as a political issue if the nuclear fleet is not, in fact, facing an existential crisis. This is naïve. Executives at corporations that own nuclear power plants, watching as neighboring states hand out subsidies, have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to try to get it for themselves—whether or not their plants are already turning a profit.
...it can happen.
...If there were an catastrophe it would only effect a small population. Our resources could no longer be used as against us...
...imagine a world where nuclear power is decentralized, cleaner combined with solar and wind where practical...
...NASA has produced a small nuclear power cell for Mars the size of a trash can that can power a small city with minimal toxicity...
Do not believe in centralized power stations. They make us weak and dependent on utility companies and government. They are dangerous resources and produce too much toxicity and nuclear waste...
So now radical Libbies are complaining about non carbon energy producers using subsidies designed to help non carbon energy producers. LibbieMadness
Aren't green power incentives sweetheart deals, by design?