Skip to main content

After Cap-and-Trade

jim-webb Never say never, but the cap-and-trade provisions in the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill have made a number of Senators nervous about supporting it. A number of Republicans have termed it cap-and-tax and some Democrats are not inclined toward it either. For example, take this bit from the Times West Virginian:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, (D-W.Va.), reportedly plans to vote against the resolution [the climate change bill] while Sen. Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), has “serious concerns” with the House’s amendments to the original resolution.

Rockefeller, in other words, is still on the fence, but that’s an uncomfortable place to be. We have no opinion on the efficacy of cap-and-trade: it’s more market based than a direct carbon tax would be, but beyond that, we’ll take whatever gets the job of climate change mitigation done without destroying industries in the process.

That said, and given the skittishness about it, might it be possible to come up with a bill that bypasses the cap-and-trade issue while staying focused on climate change?

Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced “The Clean Energy Act of 2009,” a bipartisan bill to promote further investment and development of the nation’s clean energy technologies, including nuclear power and other resources. The Alexander-Webb bill is designed to invigorate the economy, create jobs, and move the United States toward providing clean, carbon-free sources of energy.

Well, it is bipartisan insofar as the two sponsors are from the two parties. How far it gets depends on the traction it receives from Republicans and Democrats uncomfortable with cap-and-trade -– and that’s by no means a unanimous group. Such support may or may not be enough to carry it since, after all, Kerry-Boxer is far from dead.

But there’s a lot to like in Webb-Alexander, especially for nuclear nabobs:

  • Authorization of $100 billion in government backed loans for the development of clean, carbon-free energy to bring in investors and project developers to jump start efforts that are otherwise too capital-intensive up front.
  • $100 million per year for 10 years toward nuclear education and training. The nuclear revival cannot take place without a workforce and for that reason the bill provides much-needed support to educate and train craftsmen, engineers, operators and other workers.
  • $200 million per year for 5 years for a cost-sharing mechanism between government and industry to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review new nuclear reactor designs such as small and medium reactors and help bring those technologies from concept into the market place.
  • $50 million per year for 10 years for much needed research to extend the lifetime of our current nuclear fleet and maximize the production of low-cost nuclear power.
  • $750 million per year for 10 years for research and development of low-cost solar technology, battery technology, advanced bio-fuels, low-carbon coal, and technologies that will reduce nuclear waste.  Each of these will be funded at $150 million, annually.

Sense a certain theme at work there? Now, consider that the idea behind the Kerry-Boxer bill is that it was designed as a framework which would have provisions added to it via the Senate’s amendment process. That’s still going to happen now that the bill has moved on to the Finance Committee.

Further, consider Sen. Alexander’s decided taste for nuclear energy as a carbon emission reducer – we wrote about that and his energy blueprint here last July -  and you can see that the Webb-Alexander bill had a nuclear energy section that could dovetail with Alexander’s provisions from his blueprint. He had already worked these out. The rest of the titles may seem a little barren, but if the bill gains traction, that will change.

The nuclear industry responded enthusiastically:

“With this legislation, Sens. Alexander and Webb are offering a substantive package of incentives and programs that realistically addresses the requirements necessary for our nation to achieve the significant expansion of nuclear energy that can meet rising electricity demand with a proven source of clean energy. These two senators already have seen the tremendous economic development in their own states that will be generated by re-establishing the U.S. manufacturing base for commercial nuclear technology.

And that’s exactly right. The Senators introduced this at the American Nuclear Society’s annual meeting and have already submitted it to the senate. You can find it at Thomas as S.2776.

Sen. Jim Webb rounds the corner.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The best day for the Earth's environment will be the day Robert Byrd retires. We'll never break coal's stranglehold on the economy while he's throwing his seniority around.
Phil said…
$100 million per year for 10 years toward nuclear education and training.

My favorite part. Lots of grants for people going to college studying mathematics and nuclear physics I hope. And training programs for nuclear workers. Sweet.
DocForesight said…
Gentlemen: with this quote "...we’ll take whatever gets the job of climate change mitigation done..." are we to assume that NEI Nuke Notes takes the position that humans can exert an influence on global climate?

Considering the growing number of scientists who question the premise and the shifting public sentiment, it might be wiser to back off the cap-and-trade wagon until more evidence proves it's a necessary and workable mandate.

Also, why not include opening the OCS and more on-shore lands for exploration? This is an Energy Bill, right?
David Bradish said…
are we to assume that NEI Nuke Notes takes the position that humans can exert an influence on global climate?

No. Our position has to do with the cap and trade or carbon tax effects that are created to reduce CO2 emissions. If either of these (or others) are implemented, we will support the ones that are fair and treat nuclear fairly. That's all.

why not include opening the OCS and more on-shore lands for exploration?

If you're asking if we support OCS, then we remain neutral on the topic. We're focused on trying to promote our own technology, that's plenty enough to do. :)
DocForesight said…
Thank you, David. I appreciate the clarification.

If the latest information on the email scandal involving the Hadley CRU scientists and associated researchers holds up to scrutiny, and if the basis for much of the criticism of CO2 released from energy producing sources is shown to have been misplaced, at best, and part of a grand disinformation campaign, at worst, then will the need for any type of tax or scheme on CO2 be eliminated as unnecessary?

Full disclosure: I have been skeptical of AGW for some time as it assaults my common sense. I favor nuclear power because of its inherent efficiency in all respects and I oppose any form of pollution - physical and verbal - as it demonstrates disdain for my fellow human beings. Pardon my rant, please.
Brian Mays said…
Well, I wouldn't get too ahead of myself. Even if everything in the recent "Warmergate" scandal turns out to be accurate and true, too many people have too much invested emotionally, financially, politically, or all of the above, to let this issue go away that easily. As one person on the internet cynically put it, "hundreds of ... environmental editors need it to pay their mortgages."

Anyhow, the case for nuclear power does not depend on global warming, climate change, or whatever new name comes along in the future to rebrand the same issue.
Aaron Rizzio said…
Apropos of the above comments the Lancet has just published a study detailing a wide range of public health "co-benefits" to a carbon dioxide control regime apart from any supposed AGW mitigation: millions of lives saved worldwide, for example, according to one OECD study cited as CO2 can be seen as a "proxy pollutant" for the ancillary toxic particulate sulfur & nitrous oxide, VOC, & ozone emissions. This could prove useful should there be a scientific collapse widely discrediting AGW as a theory in and of itself.

We are indeed living amidst an anomalous period of "global warming" known as the Holocene interglacial, some 8°C warmer than "average" temperatures over some 90% of the past couple million years at least; in contrast the last 30-40 years (since the global cooling crisis of the '70s) of purported anomalous warming is all a matter of a decimal of one degree -- and if the duration of the last 3-4 interglacials are any guide we are in fact nearing the end of the Holocene.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…