Skip to main content

When Newspapers Attack

TWTlogo We generally respect the work done at newspapers – pits of liberal iniquity that they are – because the effort at that first draft of history is important and nothing else has come along to fill that role. Plus, we scurry to add, bias in writing comes out more through detail selection than actual ideological mischief – journalistic writing has a lot of rules to tamp down overt editorializing – but sometimes, you just have to wonder.

Nuclear energy advocates quietly slipped an extra $50 billion for an Energy Department program into the Senate's budget blueprint last week, giving new life to a provision that had been rejected as "nuclear pork" in February's economic stimulus bill.

Well, no, we don’t remember it being rejected on that basis. Pork, as commonly defined, is a budget item inserted by a Congress person to benefit his or her district. Loan guarantees benefit an industry, true enough, but DOE, which will award them, hasn’t specified which projects might receive them, so no one knows which district will benefit.

Second, pork implies a cash pay-out and that’s not the case here. Loan guarantees make banks more likely to loan money, but the debt still lies with the loanee, not the government. The one argument that could gain some traction is that the government will be on the hook in case of default, but Exelon, Constellation, etc., aren’t what one would call bad risks.

It gets worse:

Without debate, explanation or a recorded vote, senators accepted an amendment by Sen. Michael D. Crapo, Idaho Republican, to boost the department's "low-carbon" energy loan construction guarantee program by $50 billion over five years.

This just isn’t very shocking in this kind of action. There’s still a long way to go and a bunch of elements – including true pork – are getting into the budget bill. The only reason to present it this way is to gin up opposition. Loan guarantees could have been accurately described if the Washington Times had talked to someone in the nuclear industry or even to NEI. So who did writer Edward Felker talk to?

Friends of the Earth plans to lobby against the plan again. It says the measure's reappearance, even in its current nonbinding form in the Senate-passed budget resolution, is proof that its sponsors are determined to win the money this year.

"There is no question the nuclear industry is not giving up," said Nick Berning, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. The industry's backers in the Senate, he said, are "trying again and we're going to fight it."

Oh no, them again. FOE certainly has as much right as NEI to take a stand on this provision and (nuclear) power to them to do it. But they’re not a notably honest group – they don’t want nuclear energy, fine, but their characterization of the loan guarantees tries to present it as a taxpayer soak, and it’s just not.

And aside from a bland quote from Sen. Crapo’s office, that’s it. The Washington Times really blew it with this one.

(Incidentally, we’d prefer to see loan guarantees in the upcoming energy bill. That’s the more appropriate place for them and ropes them into the larger arguments that will coalesce around that bill. That’s the better place even for FOE to go at it, when you think about it – less static from all the other stuff in the budget bill.)

You pronounce Crapo with a long “a,” by the way, as we’re sure Idahoans know.

Comments

Since greenhouse gas polluting fossil fuel power plants are required to supplement both wind and solar when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, 'Friends of the Earth' doesn't seem to care much about global warming and global sea rise which threatens our environment.

If Friends of the Earth really cared about the Earth's environment, then they'd agree with environmentalist like James Lovelock who strongly supports the rapid expansion of nuclear power.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Anonymous said…
You didn't notice that "nuclear pork" was A QUOTE cited by the Times before launching this lengthy exercise in grammatical micromanagement?
Ioannes said…
Mark,

I truly liked your phrase, "We generally respect the work done at newspapers – pits of liberal iniquity that they are..."

Everyone agrees that the government must never control the press. But no one questions when the press controls the government.

Let's hope that that isn't the case here. let's hope that the Obama Administration is really serious about reducing green house gas emissions and promoting low cost, pollution free electricity. I would prefer this done by the free market and a level regulatory playing field. But failing that, loan guarantees aren't a bad idea.
Anonymous said…
anonymous said, "You didn't notice that "nuclear pork" was A QUOTE cited by the Times before launching this lengthy exercise in grammatical micromanagement?"

Well, yes, it was in quotation marks, but I didn't see it attributed to anyone. Maybe I missed it. The article is full of phrases and words in quotation marks without attribution, what kind of 'journalism' is that? See how easy 'it' is.?

another anon
Man Overboard said…
The government is hurling un-godly amounts of money at social engineering projects with no economic benefit under the guise of a "stimulus." They even gave Hamas $900,000,000.00 to rebuild Gaza (i.e. buy rockets from Iran).

Why then is it so hard for some to realize that a loan gaurantee actually has zero cost and emense benefit to the tax payer? The money simply sits in escrow until private investors see a return and then the government get's it back.

Or we could just chuck another trillion into windmills and solar panels that don't produce didly-squat-megawatt.

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 …