Recently I wrote about the grassroots fight to keep billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear industry off of the historic Energy Bill (and also here ). So far, that fight has been successful.

But, as I suggested in my previous post, it looks like Big Nuclear's cronies – led by Senator Pete Domenici – are trying to slip $25 billion in nuclear giveaways into the Appropriations bill, as the New York Times reported today: "Congress reached a tentative agreement on a major energy package that it plans to enact outside the energy bill….The agreement would guarantee loans of up to $25 billion for new nuclear plants and $2 billion for a uranium enrichment plant, something those industries had been avidly seeking. It would also provide guarantees of up to $10 billion for renewable energy projects, $10 billion for plants to turn coal into liquid vehicle fuel and $2 billion to turn coal into natural gas."

Despite the carrot of a renewable energy subsidy in this package this is no way to embark on a new, green future of energy independence. Use this link to let Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and your representatives know that it's time to oppose regressive, failed, brought-to-you-by-yet-another-corporate-lobbyist energy policies, and promote a bolder and brighter future.

Comments (15)

1. I totally disagree with many of my friends on the left who condemn nuclear power. It is far from perfect, but even worst case scenarios with nuclear plants pale in comparison with the human carnage that global warming is about to unleash. Biofuels and renewables are not viable at this point, and we are at the precipice, if we have not already tumbled over. The only current technology which would allow us to abandon coal in time to possibly avert the worst case scenarios of global warming is nuclear. We have probably already crossed the tipping point- point of no return, feedbacks kick in and a whole lot of people die. Hundreds of millions of people dead or displaced. That is the future if we continue down our current path. People are obviously too stupid and/or apathetic to make any meaningful lifestyle changes, so I think we have to accept the lesser of two evils here. Climate change is about to make chernobyl look like a piss in the park boys.

   Posted by entropy at 12/14/2007 @ 5:59pm

2. KvH: ....$25 billion in nuclear giveaways......The agreement would guarantee loans of up to $25 billion for new nuclear plants....

   In the world of Liberals, loan "guarantee" is the same as "giveaways" when the beneficiaries aren't typically left-leaning. I wonder if Limo Libs (?KvH?) think loan "guarantees" for student loans are "giveaways", how about Export-Import loan "guarantees", Small Biz Admin loan "guarantees", etc...?

   Nuclear power is competitive w/carbon-based natural gas and oil at current oil/gas prices BUT.......if oil price drops through the floor, as it did, very severely, in the mid-1980s' when Saudi Arabia opened the spigot, nuke plants will be sunk! Lender's skittishness is understandable.....thus, a case can be made for "guarantees".....

   The alternative, which I favor, is to ELIMINATE ALL GUARANTEES and SUBSIDIES....including Renewables, coal-to-gas/liquid, solar, thermal, biofuels, and on and on.....

   Posted by Happy at 12/14/2007 @ 6:00pm

3. Even the French have a nuclear wast issue after the spent fuel has been reprocessed.

   http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

   Nuclear as a renewable energy source is inferior to other sources such as solar power plants with ultracap batteries (EEStor) to store energy for rainy days. First Solar even has new thin film solar technology that gets energy from the sun on cloudy days!

   Posted by Metteyya at 12/14/2007 @ 6:03pm

4. Happy- serious, rational people tend to disregard any comments containing ridiculous, cliched buzzwords like "limo Libs" or "islamofascists" "evildoers" etc. Using words such as these make you sound even more moronic than your usual gordon gecko persona. They make it sound like you might just (gasp) get all of your asinine ideas from loudmouthed pundits instead of through critical thinking.

   Posted by entropy at 12/14/2007 @ 6:16pm

5. Alternative renewables would be wonderful if people were willing to make lifestyle changes, but the glutonous, myopic masses are not. I lived on a sailboat for several years, so i know that solar and wind power are effective if people will give up certain extravagances, but we, as a nation, will not, at least not until the deletrious effects of climate change are so abundantly manifest that they affect joe schmuck's daily life. By then, it will be far too late to reverse course.

   Posted by entropy at 12/14/2007 @ 6:20pm

6. Entropy, rational people don't use terms like glutonous myopic masses. The myopic masses really hate being called that by an elitist "limo lib". Do some critical thinking of your own.

   Metteyya, super-caps biggest benefit is "load-leveling" which would improve energy efficiency for everything electrical. Super-caps could level the peak/non-peak demands of electrical use and reduce the amount of energy wasted.

   Posted by mARKlATTIN at 12/14/2007 @ 7:08pm

7. Posted by ENTROPY 12/14/2007 @ 5:59pm

   Sorry, ENTROPY, unlike many of their European counter-parts, the American "greenies" have only one solution to GW....curtail the American lifestyle and economy. Wait for solar power cars, wait for everybody to get to enjoy "carbon credits", wait for windmills built somewhere other than Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s back-yard....

   and in the meantime, live like their great-grandparents during the Great Depression.

   And certainly don't follow the FRENCH example on nuclear power (welfare and unemployment bennies, sure...but not nukes).

   Posted by Mask at 12/14/2007 @ 7:32pm

8. wow, nice one MARKLATIN, somehow you managed to conjure up the wits to take my insult, change a few words, and turn the whole thing into a stinking wet fart. Real nice contribution to the thread dipshit- you would actually take someone who uses the words "Limo libs" or "islamofascists" in an adult conversation seriously? If a healthy loathing of vocal vapidity is elitist then I plead guilty. So sorry if i offended you and your mouth breathing, knuckle dragging ilk.

   Posted by entropy at 12/14/2007 @ 8:04pm

9. Thanks Entropy, it makes my day to hear you say that I have wits. But I wasn't offended by what you said. I merely pointed out that the idiotic masses don't enjoy being called myopic masses. You did get one thing right, I am a mouth breather since my sinuses are so horrible most of the time. As of now coal power is the only option for sustainable energy policy . This is mainly because most money spent towards energy goes to coal research. The coal supply in the US will last 500 yrs at the current rate of growth. K-fuel and OXY-fuel technology allow coal to generate more usuable energy. Any future energy policy will have to incorporate coal if energy independence is the desired goal. While Solar is the best idea to replace fossil fuels, since geo is only available in a few locations, same with tidal and wind, plus tidal and wind aren't very friendly to the birds and fish. Solar has many obstacles before it become economically viable. First the highest efficiency PV's are made from pure single crystal silicon which is already in high demand for use in the chip industry and further demand would make PV's and computers more expensive. The best PV' s are the amorphous silicon type with 8% eff. Even these are still to expensive without government tax credits. The one solar solution that hasn't been discussed since the 70's is solar thermal heating. Instead of focusing on the glamorous PV industry we should first focus on using solar just to lower our heating bills. Thermal solar is cheap and proven. And since most of your energy bill is spent heating your water in the winter and cooling your air in the summer this is the cheapest most effective way to lower the energy demand for a significant portion of the US and world. The solution isn't just around the corner and the solution will require fossil fuels. Entropy please stick to the topic (energy policy), no one enjoys your weak vocabulary styling. Your posts are like jello.

   Posted by mARKlATTIN at 12/14/2007 @ 11:17pm

10. Mark

    by "best" you mean bang for the buck I assume as the amorphous cells are way less efficient than some as you allude to in the prior sentence. And too there are tandem PV/thermal collection units that have a high overall eff. Nuclear might have a place as a short-term transitional form of energy. But this assumes we act like we have a plan for the future.

    Mask

    With all due respect, US energy consumption patterns will have to change. With 5% of the world ppl using 25% of the global energy output, it is clearly a mathematical impossibility that we use a bit more than our "fair share." As other nations consume more of everything (including energy - as China and India are showing us), the US' relative % will decrease.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 12/15/2007 @ 1:43pm

11. curtail the American lifestyle and economy.

    damn! no more waiting 25 minutes in line at mcdonald's in my SUV! wow life will really suck.

    and in the meantime, live like their great-grandparents during the Great Depression.

    i use A LOT less electricity than before, buy a lot less, and experience no depression. we live BETTER.

    And certainly don't follow the FRENCH example on nuclear power (welfare and unemployment bennies, sure...but not nukes).

    a 25% (or 10% or 35% or 11.2% or whatever it is) reduction in power usage is achievable very fast. just follow the what the cubans (oh my god! he said cuba) have done and ban incandescents*.

    Posted by MASK 12/14/2007 @ 7:32pm

    *yes i know that would infringe on article 37 of the constitution, "the peoples right to heat tungsten." and yes, tungsten miners may lose their jobs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 6:34pm

12. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/15/2007 @ 6:34pm

    Incandescents have their place (Although LEDs may supplant many of those).

    I would not support a ban on them. I am not sure if I think it should be a "prohibitive tax" as much as it should always make the most energy efficient option, the cheapest.

    I replaced almost every bulb in my house with fluorescents (incandescents are better for closets etc. with short burn times. But, I have made two into LED lights). They are not that expensive, but I believe poorer people (i.e. those who could least afford increased electric bills), gravitate to the (seemingly) cheap incandescents.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2007 @ 8:32pm

13. (Burning tungsten, is for amplifiers, not lights)

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2007 @ 8:32pm

14. (Burning tungsten, is for amplifiers, not lights)

    Posted by MALCONTENT 12/15/2007 @ 8:32pm

    thanks.

    but wait:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Construction

    the incandescent light bulb page has 29 matches for tungsten.

    you know, if you can find a north american manufacturer of compact fluorescents, let me know.

    they are all madeinchina, and just imagine the mercury controls in china:

    FOREMAN: Worker 2342, we need more mercury.

    2342: Right away! [picks up bucket and heads for factory back door]. Has anybody seen the ladle?

    FOREMAN: Check the cafeteria.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/15/2007 @ 9:00pm

15. Walter Russell, a 20th century American genius, had solved our energy problem over 50 years ago, but our government resisted it because of the Oil industry-Russell stated that we should already be in The Hydrogen Age-that hydrogen is cheap, plentiful and clean energy-he built an engine that used hydrogen and showed it to Norad, but nothing happened because of entrenched powers-Russell also wrote the book "Atomic Suicide" and explained why nuclear energy will destroy the human race and should never be used-He was the TRUE discoverer of plutonium and created a NEW periodic chart, saying that the current one was incomplete- I wish some entity would do an in depth exploration of this brilliant American.

    Posted by jeanruss at 12/20/2007 @ 1:42pm