Skip to main content

Lively Debate on Nuclear Energy Between Dr. Patrick Moore and Harvey Wasserman at Democracy Now!

This is probably one of the most entertaining debates on nuclear energy I've seen in a long time!

By the way, their debate about $50 billion of loan volume in the Senate's "stimulus" package goes to "projects that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued." The actual appropriations for the $50B in loan volume is $500 million because the Congressional Budget Office scores the cost of the program at one percent of loan volume. But like I said in a previous post, if the program works as designed and no projects default, then none of this money is needed.

Also in the Senate's "stimulus" package but not mentioned in the debate is $95 billion in loan volume earmarked solely for commercially proven renewable energy projects and the transmission lines necessary to bring that renewable energy to market. What's interesting about this loan volume is that the appropriated amount is $9.5 billion. The CBO scored the costs of these loans at ten percent of loan volume. Confused yet?

Let me see if I can make it more simple. Only $500 million would be spent by the government to provide $50 billion in loan volume for the loan guarantee program. Contrast this with $9.5 billion that would be spent by the government to provide $95 billion in loan volume going solely to renewable energy projects and transmission lines.

I'm working on getting some links from the CBO that explain how they score it (their website is extremely slow right now) but this is how NEI's Government Affairs group explained what's going on. I guess Otto von Bismarck was right: The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
I also enjoyed the debate. In fact, I enjoyed it enough to mash it up for episode 126 of the Atomic Show Podcast. I tried to enliven it even more with interspersed commentary - I would be interested in getting your reactions if any.

It was pleasing to hear Patrick's response to Amy Goodman's question about what to do with the waste - the words sounded really familiar and quite a bit different from the industry line of just a few years ago.
Anonymous said…
How can these guys like Wasserman sleep at night? The gall it takes to say the French utility system works because they are Nazis is unbelievable...
Karen Street said…
What is CBO's explanation?

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 …