Renewable energy projects rarely receive financial support on par with nuclear due to the former’s limited profit potential. Nuclear energy, regardless of its associated connotation, is a constantly available source that relies on neither sunlight, wind, nor replenishable fuel supply to generate electricity. Outside of venture capital firms, capital investments are made based on the profit that can be reaped. Nuclear energy is cheaper to produce per kilowatt hour than any other source sans perhaps hydroelectricity; therefore, a dollar invested has the potential do become much more. Government grants often go to the candidate with the greatest bang for the buck potential to please voters, or at least to the candidate with the most persuasive lobbyists to this end. With our economy and society so heavily reliant on affordable and reliable energy, these decisions will always be based on dollars and cents.
Entrepreneurs in the renewable energy sector should not be without hope. In my opinion, there is substantial opportunity for investment in research and development. Technology breakthroughs will require patents, and those patents will then be licensed to manufacturing firms for development. Royalties from these licenses could be very lucrative for a venture capital firm looking to assist the renewable sector. Now is the time for ground floor investment opportunities in these technologies
I could do the “more bang for the buck”. But ultimately they, the investors, could give a rats behind about voters. And politicians can and do always tap dance around nuclear. I think it is important to say that public opinion and energy are not equals on the scale. As voters we have much less power than we used to. The bottom line is the bottom line. As you state, per dollar invested, nuclear fission will pay back and pay back big. It will not pay back quickly due to the complexity and cost of construction but when it begins to net it distributes huge profits. That’s all that really matters in the United States and for that matter the rest of the world.
“Tap dance” is a really good metaphor when it comes to nuclear (or politicians in general). Whether or not I agree with something, I always respect someone with the guts to actually tackle an issue head on.
Hi Christopher,
I tend to agree that the reason we do not see the same private financial support for the renewable energy market as the nuclear energy market is primarily profit driven. Venture capitalists and others looking to make a large return on investment are not going to see that with the renewable market just yet. However, you seem to suggest in your first paragraph that the money spent on nuclear energy is coming from government grants or, at the very least, the government grant money is going to those with the ability to hire the best lobbyists. I would disagree with this. In fact, although I certainly did not do an enormously thorough research project on this, I cannot find any evidence of grant money going to the non-renewable or nuclear markets. However, I did find a breakdown done in 2012 showing where tax “preferences” are going in the energy market and only “one-third of the total cost of energy related tax incentives” are going to the non-renewable market with even less to the nuclear market (Dinan, 2012).
I would think any grant money available would be earmarked for new renewable technologies in advancement of science to promote a stronger renewable energy market. Of course, I could not find reference to grant money for this focus either.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!
References
Dinan, T., & Webre, P. (2012, March 6). How much does the federal government support the development and production of fuels and energy technologies? Retrieved from Congressional Budget Office website: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43040
The grant money to actually build nuclear plants dried up around the time of Three Mile Island. What you see now are tax abatements and other incentives for the expansion of existing facilities. It’s all semantics with politics.
Hello Christopher! Much like Rob, I too enjoyed reading your post. I completely agree that politics play a role toward increased support for nuclear energy and renewables. If previous patterns in policy making continue, the transition toward more sustainability may be a slow one. Politicians have been heavily swayed by the oil and gas industries because these companies provide the majority of their financial support. If more politicians focused on whats actually good for the Nation in terms of human health and the environment instead of personal gains and maintain relationships with “Big Oil” executives, the American transition toward a sustainable future would be much less rigid.
Hi Christopher,
Interest read you posted! I particularly enjoyed your view the opportunities of investing in renewable energy. My opinion is that until Renewable Portfolio Standards become more prevalent, investments in alternate energy will continue to lack behind those for traditional energies. I am a pro-nuclear energy person, finding it a great source of clean and reliable energy. I am finding that more and more pro-environment people are beginning to back nuclear power as well.
Here is a link to my post:
http://engr312.dutton.psu.edu/2014/09/05/lesson-2-energy-cost-reduction-consulting/#comments
Best,
Rob