• 3 hours Midwestern Refiners Seek Canadian Oil To Expand Output
  • 8 hours UK On Track To Approve Construction of “Mini” Nuclear Reactors
  • 12 hours LNG Glut To Continue Into 2020s, IEA Says
  • 14 hours Oil Nears $52 With Record OPEC Deal Compliance
  • 17 hours Saudi Aramco CEO Affirms IPO On Track For H2 2018
  • 19 hours Canadia Ltd. Returns To Sudan For First Time Since Oil Price Crash
  • 21 hours Syrian Rebel Group Takes Over Oil Field From IS
  • 3 days PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 3 days Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 4 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 4 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 4 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 4 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 4 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 4 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 4 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 4 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 4 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 4 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 5 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 5 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 5 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 5 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 5 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 5 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 5 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 5 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 5 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 6 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 6 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 6 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 6 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 7 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 7 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 7 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 7 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 7 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 7 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 7 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 7 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
Alt Text

New Tech Is Transforming Japan’s Energy Sector

The tech that built bitcoin…

Alt Text

This OPEC Strategy Could Boost Uranium Prices Next Year

Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium…

Alt Text

Russia’s Nuclear Sector Is Surging

With a long-standing nuclear tradition,…

What Are You Willing to Sacrifice to Give Up Nuclear Energy?

What Are You Willing to Sacrifice to Give Up Nuclear Energy?

After the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, someone said to me “We have to stop all offshore drilling.” My response was that I could get behind that idea, but I wanted to know what sacrifices the person was willing to make. That turned out to be the end of the conversation, because usually the people campaigning against these sorts of things believe that the consequences will be all good (no more oil spills) with no real downside (like less energy available). I can tell you with absolute certainty that we can live with no offshore drilling, but I can also tell you that the price of your fuel would be greater — and probably far greater — than it is today.

Nuclear Power Plant
Nuclear power plants fill a need -- cheap energy -- that consumers demand. Are you willing to give it up?

I believe that the reason we have so much “dirty” energy is that we demand cheap energy. I spoke to a reporter in Japan this week about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant, and he said he couldn’t help but notice that despite some rolling blackouts now, Japan remains very much a country with all of the lights on.

Root Cause: Consumers Demand Cheap, Abundant Energy

This gets right to the heart of why we have nuclear power: We demand cheap energy; energy so cheap that we can afford to leave all of the lights in the house on all day long. Both coal and nuclear-generated electricity are viewed as cheap relative to many other options — admittedly debatable given charges of government subsidies and the occasional environmental calamity — as well as reliable (again, environmental calamities notwithstanding).

My response to the reporter was that I love lobster, but I rarely eat it because it is so expensive. If they served $2 lobster at McDonalds, we would all consume much more lobster and of course the supply of lobsters would be under pressure. If we all demanded cheap lobster and got angry when our lobsters became more expensive, politicians would work to give us what we want lest they be voted out of office. We would see all sorts of lobster-related subsidies designed to bring us all cheap lobsters (which have to be paid through taxes and/or deficit spending). Consequences of our cheap lobster demands — higher deficits and possibly no more lobsters — would be pushed onto another generation.

Nuclear's share of electricity net generation
Nuclear's share of electricity net generation jumped from just 5% in the early 1970's to roughly 20% by the late 1980's and has remained there ever since.

This of course describes our energy dilemma. We demand cheap energy. Politicians recognize that, so they strive to deliver cheap energy or they lose their jobs. When energy prices go up, finger-pointing and congressional hearings follow. And at the end of the day, it means that our energy usage is so high that we “need” offshore drilling, tar sands, nuclear power, and coal power. It is a self-sustaining cycle that diminishes resources and potentially spoils the environment for future generations.

Forcing a Change Begins With “Us” Modifying Our Habits

Instead of being part of that cycle, I wish more politicians would have the guts to stand up and say “Enough! We have to break this cycle.” The problem is that many of them have idealistic views that renewable energy can step up and fill the gap if we had no nuclear power or offshore drilling. I confess that I have an idealistic streak within me, but I am mostly a realist. I understand why nuclear power rather than solar power fills a third of Japan’s electricity needs. It is all about the size of their electric bills and the convenience of having cheap electricity available around the clock.

US Electric Power Industry Net Generation
Nuclear and fossil fuels accounted for nearly 90% of U.S. net electric power generation in 2009.

Albert Einstein reportedly once said “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” If we are to do without nuclear power, the way to lessen our dependence on it is to change our mindset on cheap energy. We just need to make electricity expensive enough that people don’t leave all their lights on all day long. It is as simple as that. And we could accomplish that without further burdening consumers already struggling with high energy prices.

Shifting the Tax Burden

Imagine a family whose income is $50,000 per year, pays $10,000 per year in income taxes, spends $2,500 on gasoline, and $2,500 on electricity. I would propose to shift their tax burden from income to energy so that it ultimately ends up something like this: $5,000 in income taxes, $2,500 in additional gasoline taxes, and $2,500 in additional electricity taxes. I would exempt renewable sources of energy from these higher taxes. Note that the family is still out of pocket $10,000 in taxes, but the burden is shifted from income toward addressing our dirty sources of energy. People often complain that oil companies receive subsidies and that this puts renewable energy at a disadvantage. As I have argued, what better way to get those subsidies back than by raising the price of the product they sell via higher taxes? Again, that’s usually as far as the conversation goes because people believe that you can take away subsidies and the consumer won’t feel a thing.

In response to the above scenario, the knee-jerk reaction from small-minded thinkers is often “You want to raise our taxes!” But that isn’t true, I want to shift them in such a way that it encourages us to conserve, while at the same time incentivizing renewable energy. As I have written before, E85 could dominate the marketplace in the Midwest if it could consistently compete with the price of gasoline. Well, what if gasoline cost $8 a gallon? The entire ethanol supply would be consumed close to the source of production, and we wouldn’t need to process tar sands so Iowans could put gasoline in their cars — even as they export their ethanol out of the region.

U.S. Primary Energy Flow
U.S. Primary Energy Flow by Source and Sector, 2009 (Quadrillion Btu). Source: EIA.

There are admittedly many considerations for higher energy prices beyond how it might impact an average family. Consideration would have to be given to businesses that presently require high energy consumption such that an increase in taxes doesn’t put them out of business. Exemptions would need to be given to hospitals, fire and police departments, and numerous other critical services that are heavy consumers of energy. In the longer term, everyone will have to become more efficient, but the low-hanging fruit is discretionary energy usage by consumers.

Conclusion – Are You Willing to Sacrifice?

So during this debate on whether we really need nuclear power, I will ask the same questions I asked when the topic was offshore drilling: How much are you willing to pay to be rid of it? If your answer is “nothing” then you are simply engaging in wishful thinking. Personally, I would be willing to pay a price to stop some of these energy options that pose risks to our environment. I can’t say that a majority would be willing to pay more, but I think the idea could be sold on the basis that your overall tax burden does not change. In that case, you are paying more for energy — potentially enabling a phase-out of nuclear plants as demand falls — but your overall budget isn’t impacted.

The fatal flaw in the plan, of course, will be politics as usual. As soon as someone proposes such a thing, the focus will be “My opponent wants to raise your gas taxes.” Of course that is the kind of thinking that got us to this point. But we will need to change our thinking to seriously consider a phase-out of nuclear power.

By. Robert Rapier

Source: R Squared Energy Blog




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on March 18 2011 said:
    I am willing to give up bailing out Wall Street, propping up Israel, and burning up what is left of our oil to invade and conquer other peoples' oil. China has hit break-even with hot fusion. Thorium-cycle reactors are a reality and mush safer than the 30 year old General Electric design reactors now showering radioactive debris all over the Pacific.Had we not wasted $14 trillion on saving Wall Street from their own mortgage-backed security fraud (the biggest financial swindle since the Great South Seas Company disaster of 1721) we could have already had new and safe energy producing technologies.Does this look like sound government to you?
  • Anonymous on March 19 2011 said:
    Basically I would never ask or answer the question posed in the title to this excellent article, because if I did ask or answer it, I might receive some goofy answer or comment. In my new book I argue in favor of a 'slight' increase in nuclear in the US, and a lot more renewables and alternatives. Where the latter two are concerned though I make not attempted to be specific, because I think that Secretary Chu or his foot soldiers should provide us with that information.
  • Anonymous on March 21 2011 said:
    >After the Deepwater Horizon spill >in the Gulf of Mexico, someone >said to me “We have to stop all>offshore drilling.” My response >was that I could get behind that >idea, but I wanted to know what >sacrifices the person was >willing to make. Mr. Rapier: You are right on. I've been saying all along, ever since the Fukushima nuclear power plant crisis started a week ago Saturday, that if we shut down all the world's nuclear power plants AND cap carbon dioxide by reducing coal-burning too, an awful lot of people are going to be asked to volunteer to have big windmills located near their homes. An awful lot of people too, will be asked to volunteer to live without air conditioning in the summer. Or perhaps, live without many of the electrically operated conveniences they are accustomed to.
  • Anonymous on August 24 2011 said:
    I've heard these arguments before. Reality check;rise the price of energy, diminish the utility of society. Planet Earth is made up of mostly poor people. Poverty from non-development. Resources are scarce for only the lack of energy to tap them. Inflated costs and no recourse capital puts the poorest in famine, epidemics and local war! That's 10 years of being an American foot soldier and 16 years of driving a commercial rig. Prediction, when energy gets that expensive... China will move in to 'secure' the oil fields in the Middle East if Israel attacks Iran!

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News