‘Bacon-Trimmers’ Nelson And Collins Protect $50 Billion In Nuclear Pork
‘Bacon-Trimmers’ Nelson And Collins Protect $50 Billion In Nuclear Pork
Despite Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) claim that he, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and other centrists “trimmed the fat, fried the bacon, and milked the sacred cows” to deliver a shrunken economic recovery package, they kept in a $50 billion dollar nuclear boondoggle:
Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, commitments to guarantee loans under section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, shall not exceed a total principal amount of $50,000,000,000 for eligible projects, to remain available until committed: Provided, That these amounts are in addition to any authority provided elsewhere in this Act and this and previous fiscal years . . .
As the Wonk Room has previously written, the line item inserted by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) for $50 billion in misleadingly named “clean energy” loan guarantees will go primarily to the nuclear industry, generating few jobs and little economic growth.
Furthermore, the Senate watered down a new program intended to spur the widespread commercial deployment of renewable electricity. The new program, Section 1705, is exclusively for loan guarantees for renewable energy and electric power transmission systems that will be completed by September 30, 2012. The House of Representatives appropriated $8 billion exclusively to this program. Nelson-Collins instead allocates $8.5 billion to both Section 1705 as well as the broad “clean energy” loan guarantee program, thwarting the goals of President Obama.
The Senate package also ups the cash for coal companies at the behest of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), more than doubling the House’s allocation for fossil energy programs that capture carbon emissions to $4.6 billion. There is even a loophole that allows coal plants that do not make any attempt to capture emissions to qualify, by allowing that “awards for such projects may include plant efficiency improvements for integration with carbon capture technology.”
In sum, Sens. Bennett and Byrd, Nelson and Collins “trimmed the fat” by keeping $50 billion in pork for the nuclear and coal industry — while cutting billions in funds for science, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and green jobs programs.
7 Responses to “‘Bacon-Trimmers’ Nelson And Collins Protect $50 Billion In Nuclear Pork”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
My first impulse on hearing this was outrage, but in the end, I’m thinking it’s ok. That $50 Billion is up to Sec Energy Steven Chu to spend, and he’s very big on renewables. He knows that you can spend Billions on a Nuclear Plant, and not see a Watt produced for 10 or more years.
See http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10159101-54.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=GreenTech
February 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pmFigures – No Money to the States who disparately need it. Little to the schools, who disparately need it.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmBut a Republican can get money for a Complete Waste of Money.
And they say they are Cutting the Waste out.
Right.
“Generating few jobs and little economic growth”. Maybe the direct application of that $50 billion wont, but the nuclear industry can:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/02/job-growth-in-nuclear-energy-industry.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/11/nuclear-engines-of-job-creation.html
February 9th, 2009 at 11:27 pmAlthough I’m certainly not for its use in the long term, until we can make renewables by themselves (without govt. intervention) competitive with coal and oil, nuclear may be a part of the equation. Sure, it doesn’t create many jobs or spur economic growth, but let’s also make this a conversation about CO2 emissions.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:10 amMr. Thulin,
February 10th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWhy are you okay with this huge government-subsidized package for nuclear power (this is government intervention), but only for renewables without government intervention? It’s this kind of reasoning that defeats me.
Loan guarantees are not appropriations. They are insurance, and are designed to raise confidence of private investors to fund construction of nuclear power plants.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last Friday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he only expects federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants to cover three of them. This is consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provided just $18 billion in loan coverage for 3-4 new reactors. The provision in the Senate stimulus bill for $50 billion in loan guarantees still faces the challenges of a conference committee with the House.
The issue for the nuclear energy industry is that utilities submitted applications worth $122 billion for total construction costs worth $188 billion or ten times the amount currently authorized by law. The industry has made a case that new plant construction will produce jobs, but it isn’t clear that the House will buy the provision in the Senate bill.
Here are two reports which provide additional details on these issues.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/10/ten-tons-of-chickens-five-tons-of-truck.html
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/11/nuclear-engines-of-job-creation.html
February 10th, 2009 at 10:32 pmMs. Weehler,
You bring up an excellent point. Perhaps here I am referring to the R&D costs that are required of renewables but not of nuclear power – with nuclear, the costs will go almost solely to production/manufacturing where renewables would not go to major production, but to R&D.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for renewables as the end-goal, but the short-term requires immediate action (large nuclear power plants take 10 years to build you might say, and that brings up the dire question of when we need to have a CO2-free energy system in place, and that brings up a whole new argument.)
I hope that clarifies.
Thanks
February 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm