<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Sen. Alexander calls for 100 new nuke plants, won’t work with Dems on climate bill]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Username http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:58:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/1 This is sad, but I think you got it all coverd.

]]> This is sad, but I think you got it all coverd.

]]> Comment #2 by vbstenswick http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:08:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/2 This is interesting.  Is a Repulican actually acknowleding that climate change is real, man made, and a serious problem?????You are missing the boat.  This is earth shattering, a Republican willing to take responsiblity for something.  Now, nuclear is not the correct approach, but I am not going to get uptight.  To a certain extent he is right about some of the renewable mandates.  Another way to look at it is if we gave wind the same incentives as we gave solar, we would drive the coal industry out of existence.  Solar is so uneconomic that it needs huge subsidies.  I do not oppose it simply because I do not oppose anything that halts GHG emission growth.  As far as Exelon goes, be careful what you wish for.  They might state economic concerns, but they may have other motives.  Maybe they believe they have the votes to block any climate legislation and can continue to burn coal.  Just a thought.  I still believe that we should give electricity generated from waste heat recovery the same tax breaks as wind.  I am not in the industry, but I think you would see an explosion of investment in energy efficiency.  Care would have to be taken in not retrofitting too many coal plants that are going to have to be shut down.  I firmly believe that GHG emissions can be capped in 2-3 years with waste heat recovery--world wide.

]]> This is interesting.  Is a Repulican actually acknowleding that climate change is real, man made, and a serious problem?????You are missing the boat.  This is earth shattering, a Republican willing to take responsiblity for something.  Now, nuclear is not the correct approach, but I am not going to get uptight.  To a certain extent he is right about some of the renewable mandates.  Another way to look at it is if we gave wind the same incentives as we gave solar, we would drive the coal industry out of existence.  Solar is so uneconomic that it needs huge subsidies.  I do not oppose it simply because I do not oppose anything that halts GHG emission growth.  As far as Exelon goes, be careful what you wish for.  They might state economic concerns, but they may have other motives.  Maybe they believe they have the votes to block any climate legislation and can continue to burn coal.  Just a thought.  I still believe that we should give electricity generated from waste heat recovery the same tax breaks as wind.  I am not in the industry, but I think you would see an explosion of investment in energy efficiency.  Care would have to be taken in not retrofitting too many coal plants that are going to have to be shut down.  I firmly believe that GHG emissions can be capped in 2-3 years with waste heat recovery--world wide.

]]> Comment #3 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:13:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/3 Politically, it strikes me that nuclear is a chip that the Ds ought to play to call the Rs bluff.  For all the reasons you mention.  The private sector won't build it without guarantees.  Alexander says the guarantees will be made by ratepayers... which in turn means that 50 separate state utility commissions will have to agree with Alexander that the interests of the taxpayers ought to be borne by ratepayers (and that the taxpayers actually do have such an interest.)  And even if all that happens, you still need to do something during the decade+ when new nuke isn't online.

All that suggests to me that the savviest political move the Ds could play would be to accpet the apparent request and stick ratepayer-backed nuclear into the bill.  If the price of good policy is simply that we agree to build a zoo for unicorns if anyone ever discovers one, why not concede the point?

]]> Politically, it strikes me that nuclear is a chip that the Ds ought to play to call the Rs bluff.  For all the reasons you mention.  The private sector won't build it without guarantees.  Alexander says the guarantees will be made by ratepayers... which in turn means that 50 separate state utility commissions will have to agree with Alexander that the interests of the taxpayers ought to be borne by ratepayers (and that the taxpayers actually do have such an interest.)  And even if all that happens, you still need to do something during the decade+ when new nuke isn't online.

All that suggests to me that the savviest political move the Ds could play would be to accpet the apparent request and stick ratepayer-backed nuclear into the bill.  If the price of good policy is simply that we agree to build a zoo for unicorns if anyone ever discovers one, why not concede the point?

]]> Comment #4 by setb http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:53:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/4 It strikes me that the best way to nip nukes in the bud would be to mandate extremely tough safety & anti-terrorism standards--while refusing public loan gurantees. 

]]> It strikes me that the best way to nip nukes in the bud would be to mandate extremely tough safety & anti-terrorism standards--while refusing public loan gurantees. 

]]> Comment #5 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:17:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/5 Anyone who thinks we can build 5 nuke plants a year for 20 years in a row has obviously sufferd radiation poisoning to the brain.

]]> Anyone who thinks we can build 5 nuke plants a year for 20 years in a row has obviously sufferd radiation poisoning to the brain.

]]> Comment #6 by walt k http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:33:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/6 Bingo. But do add in the elimination of liability waivers the nuclear industry has been granted in many states. As we've seen with health care, the insurance industry will gladly suck all the money out of anything. Without externalized costs, nuclear can't compete with biofuels, much less wind and solar. Ironic that the party of "No" says "Yes" to something as looney as this. They've painted themselves into a corner.

]]> Bingo. But do add in the elimination of liability waivers the nuclear industry has been granted in many states. As we've seen with health care, the insurance industry will gladly suck all the money out of anything. Without externalized costs, nuclear can't compete with biofuels, much less wind and solar. Ironic that the party of "No" says "Yes" to something as looney as this. They've painted themselves into a corner.

]]> Comment #7 by neosapiens http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:47:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/7 As long as there are no loan guarentees and no federal assumption of liability, so that taxpayers are fully protected, I don't mind if investors want to build nuclear plants.  The hard truth is that investors aren't willing to tie up their capital for a couple of decades while the rest of the clean tech industry blows past them with more profitable and lower-risk innovations. Investors want to shove all the costs onto the taxpayers and then reap all the rewards.  We can't sustain the rivers of red ink at the federal level that we already have--we can't afford to sink trillions of dollars into nuclear plants. It would be better to open up the system to allow all forms of GHG-reduction compete fairly on cost. That will drive efficiency, conservation, and innovation of all sorts.

]]> As long as there are no loan guarentees and no federal assumption of liability, so that taxpayers are fully protected, I don't mind if investors want to build nuclear plants.  The hard truth is that investors aren't willing to tie up their capital for a couple of decades while the rest of the clean tech industry blows past them with more profitable and lower-risk innovations. Investors want to shove all the costs onto the taxpayers and then reap all the rewards.  We can't sustain the rivers of red ink at the federal level that we already have--we can't afford to sink trillions of dollars into nuclear plants. It would be better to open up the system to allow all forms of GHG-reduction compete fairly on cost. That will drive efficiency, conservation, and innovation of all sorts.

]]> Comment #8 by greenandlovingit http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/ Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:54:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-13-lamar-alexander-climate-bill/8 Well, I guess since the Dems aren't working with Rep on anything they want passed, it makes sense.

]]> Well, I guess since the Dems aren't working with Rep on anything they want passed, it makes sense.

]]>