Skip to main content

Environmentalists Among the Ruffians

2845573228_b130aa61ce Senate's Clean Energy Deployment Plan: A Nuclear Slush Fund in the Making?

That’s the title of an article on Solve Climate.com. It makes the somewhat juvenile mistake of imagining that something that works against their narrow band of interests is malignant, in this case further metastasized by evil lobbyists. Here’s a bit:

U.S. lawmakers are considering legislation that would create a new independent federal agency to promote government investment in clean energy.

But watchdogs are raising questions about the way the proposed agency is structured, and whether it would be unfair to taxpayers and bad for the environment. Among their concerns are its bias toward nuclear power — a critical issue for the South, which is at the center of the nuclear industry's planned revival.

They’re talking about the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) and of course nuclear energy is there – it is a clean energy. Not renewable, but that’s not CEDA’s brief – carbon emission reduction is and that means nuclear as well as all the renewable energy sources. (We suspect those “watchdogs,” or some of them, call Solve Climate home. Two can play at that game and “watchdogs” in the nuclear industry don’t see a problem.)

Here’s a bullet point from the article:

The Senate version allows one technology to hog all the money. The House caps at 30% the amount of total dollars available that can be given to any one technology. However, the Senate version has no caps, which means one technology [guess which?]could enjoy the lion's share of the available subsidies.

And the conclusion it draws:

Given those provisions — coupled with the Senate climate legislation's general friendliness toward nuclear power, which it calls a "clean and secure domestic energy" whose use should be expanded — energy policy expert Michele Boyd of Physicians for Social Responsibility said during a recent discussion of the bill that CEDA could essentially act as a "slush fund" for nuclear power.

Well, no, just because there is no cap doesn’t mean nuclear energy concerns will be slopping in the trough. If anything, wind has the, er, wind at its back, and farm states want biofuels way up the list. Nuclear really will be one among many industries looking to CEDA, not first among equals. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.

Here’s the thing: if you advocate for something, let’s say renewable energy sources, then you recognize, we think realistically, that Congress has many competing priorities and you’re likely to get some but not all of what you want while other priorities you consider loathsome are likely to win and lose some battles too.

However, if you advocate against something, let’s say nuclear energy, then the loathsomeness becomes a disease, overtaking and ruining all your own success for its own rapacious, illegitimate ends. It’s like stumbling innocently into a saloon full of ruffians.

The article also gets into campaign contributions and lobbying, but we don’t think that part’s very good either. Current law allows contributions and lobbying across the ideological spectrum on all issues.

[Former Sen. Jeff] Bingaman [D.N.M.] has gotten more from NEI than just money: In 2006, he also won NEI's William S. Lee Award for Leadership. In accepting the award, he asked the lobbying group to "do your part to use those tools that Congress has put in place to ensure that nuclear power achieves its potential as part of our future energy mix." It now appears the industry is doing just that — with Bingaman's help.

In other words, Bingaman supports nuclear energy and appreciates NEI’s efforts to expand its use. Thinking that NEI lines pockets and sandbags politicians with lies while, say, Greenpeace sprinkles stardust and says only kind things in a kind way is, once again, a little juvenile.

Lobbyists really can’t do wholesale lying on a topic, because it kills credibility at best and locks the lobby out of the conversation at worst.

We like environmentalists and their activities a lot – we’ve been know to support their efforts – but the pose of superior innocence is very trying – and not very honest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …