Webb Calls for Massive Nuclear Investment Instead of Cap and Trade
| Mon Nov. 16, 2009 2:32 PM PST
Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia threw another wrench in the Senate climate debate on Monday, announcing that he is cosponsoring an alternative bill with Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Their solution to the climate problem? A massive handout to the nuclear industry.
"This is an issue that cries out for not only for bipartisanship but constructive leadership," said Webb, apparently not recognizing that there is already a serious bipartisan effort underway in the Senate.
Webb signaled that he is not likely to vote for the climate bill that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is working on with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), despite the fact that it is expected to include generous support for nuclear energy. The existing House and Senate climate bills are too "enormously complex," Webb complained to reporters, concluding: "In its present form I would not vote for it."
A massive investment in nuclear power, however, is something he and Alexander can get behind. "We believe there's a more bipartisan interest in clean energy in the Senate than it would appear when you take a look at the climate change debate," said Alexander, who opposes a cap-and-trade bill. "Speaking for myself, I don't want to see us get so stuck on climate change that we don't move ahead on the things we can agree on."
Alexander and Webb's bill would provide $100 billion in loan guarantees for "carbon-free electricity," which would mostly go to new nuclear plants. Their bill would also provide $200 million per year for five years to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed up approval of new reactors, another $100 million each year for 10 years for education and training for nuclear workers, and $50 million each year for 10 years to research how to extend the life of existing reactors. They aim to double the use of nuclear power in the next 20 years, and estimate that the total cost to the government over that period would be $20 billion.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Their bill would also fund funds for research and development of other energy technologies, which they call "mini-Manhattan projects"—$150 million each for solar energy, advanced biofuels, carbon-capture-and-sequestration, nuclear fuel reprocessing, and batteries for electric vehicles. However, there's no support for wind power in their package, probably because Alexander has said repeatedly that he's not particularly fond of windmills. "If we were going to war, we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear Navy and start subsidizing sailboats,” Alexander said at a meeting of the American Nuclear Society on Monday morning. "If climate change as well as low-cost reliable energy are national imperatives, we shouldn’t stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills." Alexander also said he thinks that windmills take up too much space.
Alexander proposed a plan back in August that called for 100 new nuclear plants in 20 years. He says his office has run the numbers, and a massive nuclear expansion could achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions similar to those under cap-and-trade.
But even before Alexander and Webb introduced their proposal, nuclear power was one of the climate debate's biggest winners. Most estimates predict that the House bill would already result in the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next 20 years. And there's an even more specific nuclear title in the version of the bill that the Environment and Public Works Committee advanced earlier this month.
But although Webb argued that their plan is "targeted and achievable," the reality is that such a massive expansion of nuclear power would be expensive, and might not ever happen. A study released in June by economist Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School found that building and operating 100 new nuclear reactors would cost between $1.9 trillion and $4.1 trillion more over the life of the reactors than it would cost to generate the same amount of electricity from renewables and energy efficiency. New reactor construction would be almost entirely dependent on taxpayer support, as the private sector has been unwilling to make big investments in the sector. Cooper released a new report this month analyzing the costs a massive nuclear expansion would pose to taxpayers, concluding that "loan guarantees are a bald face attempt to override the judgment of the capital markets, which will leave taxpayers and ratepayers holding the bag."
The senators believe, however, that their legislation can find broad consensus in the Senate. As Alexander put it: "This is a piece of legislation that could stand on its own and could be supported by senators who favor economy-wide cap and trade and senators who don't."
Comments
Ughhhhh
Submitted by Ryan Scholl (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 2:40 PM PST.
This makes me cringe. I don't know what's worse... that they think the massive nuclear subsidies currently in the CEJAPA bill are not enough or that they want to try and treat nuclear power as 'clean.'
follow the money
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 5:13 PM PST.
It never fails. Follow the money: how much money do Webb and Alexander get from the nuclear industry? Or, how much will they get as a gratuity for a job well done?
Alexander sees windmills as a return to the nineteenth century? Guess Denmark has done quite well with that. And a lot of other countries. Is anyone sick and tired of the stupidity out there? These people--the polticos are out-and-out morons. A more penetrating question than nuclear vs. wind is how does our system select and elect persons who are patently inferior to leaders of other developed countries? Is it us or is it our electoral system?
I would say that cost is
Submitted by christmas stocking fillers (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 7:10 PM PST.
I would say that cost is largely concealed by several existing subsidies, most of which are hidden from view. Nuclear Subsidies is a new report from the Energy Fair group about the subsidies that the nuclear industry is already receiving. The report is written from a UK perspective but it seems likely that much the same can be said in most other parts of the world.
Just one problem with nuclear...
Submitted by Gary K on Tue Nov. 17, 2009 7:45 AM PST.
One problem with a nuclear investment, is that we're running out of uranium. By the time you build those plants, we'll be out of fuel.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentfiles/ASPO6/3-2_APSO6_MDittmar.pdf
ever heard of reprocessing.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Nov. 17, 2009 1:33 PM PST.
ever heard of reprocessing. right now the majority of uranium being used to fuel reactors is coming form de-commissioned nuclear warheads. Also there are huge uranium mines in Canada and Australia and with new advances in Gen 4 reactors we will need less uranium and someday soon reactors will run on thorium.
comparably nuclear is clean.
Submitted by renewables? are you kiddin me? (not verified) on Tue Nov. 17, 2009 1:28 PM PST.
comparably nuclear is clean. Beyond that, renewables aren't going to do it. Look at Denmark which is the poster nation for wind energy. It has some of the highest energy prices in Europe and has yet to shut down a coal factory. Wanna know why. Cause renewables aren't reliable, you need to back then up. So in 20 years when we have 180 000 more wind turbines don't expect us to have less Co2 emissions, or have closed any nat-gas plants we'll probably have to build more. I support the Alexander/Webb bill because it leaves out cap-and-trade which in my mind shouldn't be entered into any energy bill until a global price on carbon has been established and is being adhered to by all industrialized nations.
http://envirogy.wordpress.com
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
