2013 June 15 « nuclear-news

Continuing taxpayer support for nuclear idnustry

Nuclear Power, Part 2: Nukenomics By Ned Madden, 14 June 13 “………The Energy Policy Act of 2005

The federal “open wallet” strategy for nuclear energy was fully apparent in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, which not only extended Price-Anderson through 2025, but also provided the nuclear industry with financial incentives to build new nuclear power plants. Among other incentives, the act provided a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for up to 6,000 MWe of capacity from new, qualified advanced nuclear power facilities for eight years.

The first application for a new reactor eligible for this incentive was submitted in September 2007 for an expansion of the South Texas Project.

Later, under an amendment in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Section 406, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for “innovative” technologies that avoid greenhouse gases. These technologies include carbon capture and storage, renewable energy, and advanced nuclear reactor designs such as pebble bed modular reactors.

One result is that tax reductions of $4.8 billion were made available for nuclear power……..

‘Golden Fleece Award’

In February, Taxpayers for Common Sense handed out its “Golden Fleece Award” to the DoE for the dollars being spent on SMRs.

Why the dubious honor?

The DoE has already provided nearly $100 million for SMRs, while their commercial viability remains in question, the group charged. In addition, DoE has committed up to $452 million over the next five years to fund up to two separate demonstration projects.

If DoE believes there is a “need and market” for SMRs, the mature and profitable nuclear industry should bear the full risk and cost of making SMRs a reality, Autumn Hanna, TCS’s senior program director, told TechNewsWorld.

“In these tight budget times, federal taxpayers cannot afford to provide additional subsidies to the nuclear power industry,” Hanna explained.

June 15, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA | Leave a comment

There is no budding environmentalist movement for nukes.

Some thoughts on “Pandora’s Promise” and the nuclear debate By David Roberts, Grist 14 June 13 “……..Ever since I started paying attention to “nuclear renaissance” stories about a decade ago, there’s always been this credulous, excitable bit about how enviros are starting to come around. The roster of enviros in this purportedly burgeoning movement: Stewart Brand, the Breakthrough Boys, and “Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore,” who has been a paid shill for industry for decades (it sounds like thePandora folks were wise enough to leave him out). More recently George Monbiot and Mark Lynas have been added to the list. This handful of converts is always cited with the implication that it’s the leading edge of a vast shift, and yet … it’s always the same handful.

Anyway, if environmentalists are as omni-incompetent as Breakthrough has alleged all these years, why the eagerness to recruit them? I get the media appeal of “even hippies know the hippies are wrong,” but to me it smells of flop sweat.

As of now, of the 10 leading enviro groups in the U.S., zero support new nuclear power plants. In the movie, Shellenberger says, “I have a sense that this is a beautiful thing … the beginning of a movement.” I fear he has once again mistaken the contents of his navel for the zeitgeist. http://grist.org/climate-energy/some-thoughts-on-pandoras-promise-and-the-nuclear-debate/

June 15, 2013 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment