Hidden Nuclear Handout Seen in Climate Bill

[depakid]

Major environmental groups are up in arms against attempts in the U.S. Senate to pass a bill that they believe includes a thinly-veiled attempt to promote the interests of the nuclear industry under the guise of climate protection.

This is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group opposed to the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel-based energy sources.

The climate change bill, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA), is likely to be discussed by the Senate in the next few weeks.

In a statement, Blackwelder and leaders of five other environmental organizations and public interest groups described the Lieberman-Warner bill as “the biggest federal handout in the history of the nuclear industry over the past 50 years.”

They fear that, if approved, the bill would not only cost billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers in subsidies for the nuclear industry, but would also slow down efforts to fight climate change and its adverse impacts on the national economy and the environment.

“The bill contains nearly half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for ‘zero and low carbon energy technologies,’” according to FoE.

Because funding for renewable energy like solar and wind is identified separately in the bill, critics say it the so-called “zero and low carbon energy technologies” category is clearly meant for the construction of nuclear plants.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/27/9206/

[madokie]

1. Nuclear powered electrical production can not stand on its own

it hasn't up to now and it can't going into the future. btw Whatever happened to so cheap as to not need metering ;-)

[Vogon_Glory]

2. Sorry, I'm Not Going Along On The Anti-Nuke Crusade

Sorry, but I'm not going on the anti-nuclear crusade this time. As strongly as I support wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources, I can't bring myself to believe that these sources ALONE can provide for comfortable, dignified existences for America's people. I have come to believe that nuclear, for all its many faults, is the best technology available to bridge that gap.

I have come to bitterly regret my silence in regard to the nuclear versus fossil fuel debates during the last twenty to twenty five years. The evidence for the immense damage done by burning fossil fuels has been mounting higher and higher with each passing year. Not only do fossil fuels pollute the air and cause acid rain and kill people in its production and consumption, but fossil fuels also are the major contributor to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel consumption also produces more toxic and radioactive byproducts than a fission power plant generates over a lifetime of operation. Fossil fuel supplies are limited and leave the world's energy supplies under the control of misogynistic, bigoted religious fanatics.

The recent upwelling of acidic water in the oceans shows that the oceans can no longer absorb the atmospheric CO2 generated by fossil fuels. Moreover, acid oceans threaten major portions of the food webs that sustain life in the seas and that maintain many ecological systems.

If you expect me to sign up with some "no nukes" group or other, FORGET IT!

[WhiteTara]

4. add conservation to the mix along

with new conservation technologies and yep we can do without that nightmare.

We don't need leaking toxic bombs dotting the landscape. We live here. Try living a bit more simply and all can live.

We can not build our way out of this disaster. We don't need more Chernobyls around the world (the containment building is now leaking - it reached its 20 year life cycle and still no answers)

as they say - "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"
We are in a new millennium, let's try and act like it.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

What, like protesting nuclear nuclear power, and saying "let's invest in renewables"? We've been doing that for decades. I've done a fair bit myself: Look where it's got us.

We are in a new millennium, let's try and act like it.

Certainly. We can start by not building any more 50's era Soviet powerplants.

[WhiteTara]

11. let's invest in renewables instead of talking

about investing in renewables.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Again, we've been doing for decades

Centuries, in the case of hydro and geothermal.

We have got where, exactly?

[madokie]

13. Could you imagine where we would be today with nuclear waste if some of us would have

bought the spin of how great nuclear was and is and how cheap it was going to be and the waste is nothing to worry about and on and on. Well I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Yep so cheap as to not need metering, what a load that was, is.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. We'd be about where we are now, to be honest.

We'd be paying for the waste to be cooled, then either reprocessed or disposed of, which you already are. Sane people do the former, the US does the latter.

It makes little difference to the Earth, to be honest. Except for the "let's burn fossil fuels because nuclear is evil" bit.

Incidentally, I love the way you juxtapose a quote from 1954 ("too cheap to meter" - Lewis L. Strauss) with "We are in a new millennium".

Double-Plus-Irony!

:D :thumbsup:

[Vogon_Glory]

7. Oh, But We've Got Non-Nuclear Leaking Toxic Bombs

Oh, but we've GOT non-nuclear leaking toxic bombs--they're known as coal-fired power plants.

I agree with Dead Parrot--let's not build any more 1950's style Soviet-designed power plants. Let's build newer, safer ones with more idiot-proof features so that a Chernobyl-style accident can never happen again.

Incidentally, you might enjoy looking at the very interesting effects on nature that the Chernobyl plant has had on area wildlife on the History Channel's Life After People program--the area around the plant has become one of the best de-facto wildlife sanctuaries in Eastern Europe.

[WhiteTara]

10. with such interesting traits of giantism and

dwarfism. The forests are more highly radiated than other parts because the trees suck up radiation. And, don't fortet that none can live there.

I don't think that humans can build a nuclear facility that is fool proof. Call me a cynic, but I don't.

[Vogon_Glory]

15. None As In What?

None as in what? I will grant you that it isn't safe for humans to live near Chernobyl, but the irradiated areas around Chernobyl seem to have a lot of deer, birds, and rabbits.

I don't believe that humans can build an entirely fool-proof nuclear reactor, but they can build designs where the boobs, slackers, what-me-worry? types and Colonel Blimp, PhD's will have to do more and work much, much harder to gum up the works.

[kristopher]

5. You are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Your well articulated position states "I can't bring myself to believe that these sources ALONE can provide for comfortable, dignified existences for America's people."

That the lynchpin of your argument. What if I can show you that you are incorrect about this point?

Does that bring to the fore the arguments against nuclear that you omitted, such as threat of proliferation, shortage of high quality uranium, and disposal of wastes?

The replacement for 75% of our petroleum use is to be found in battery electric drive vehicles. The use of battery electric drive is so much more efficient than the Internal Combustion Engine that little to no additional grid capacity is needed to achieve that transition. Part of the reason for that is the capability of the batteries to help utilities stabilize and maximize present generating infrastructure. This same ability allows massive use of renewable sources of generation to provide baseload power. If designed properly, this "Smart Grid" working with "V2G" (vehicle to grid) backup can provide current and future needs with only a very small fraction of current fossil fuel use.

The money spent on nuclear is a huge amount that will not be spent on true renewables.

[bananas]

9. James Hansen disagrees with you

Darth Vader and Mr. Rogers
This is a guest post by noted NASA climate scientist James Hansen.
<snip>
Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term. But Massachusetts and California have demonstrated the tremendous potential of efficiency aided by appropriate incentives.
<snip>
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/1/16055/76057

[formercia]

3. Big oil is making plenty of profit

They can fund their own projects. The taxpayer is paying way too much already. Now we have to pay twice.

Screw them.

It figures. KAPO Joe is behind it.

[bananas]

8. Lieberman screws us again.

:puke: