<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Your government at work]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by TheGreenMiles http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:26:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/1 Say it with me now ...

Subsidies for solar and wind power are throwing away tax dollars on pie-in-the-sky feel-good treehugger mumbo jumbo that will never be a reliable source of energy.

Subsidies for nuclear power "demonstrate new technology that meets the nation's energy needs."

Everybody clear on that?

Read more of my rants on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

]]> Say it with me now ...

Subsidies for solar and wind power are throwing away tax dollars on pie-in-the-sky feel-good treehugger mumbo jumbo that will never be a reliable source of energy.

Subsidies for nuclear power "demonstrate new technology that meets the nation's energy needs."

Everybody clear on that?

Read more of my rants on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

]]> Comment #2 by naturescene http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:57:33 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/2 say it with me now

end all subsidies. period.  none for biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, etc.

take the politics out of energy.

]]> say it with me now

end all subsidies. period.  none for biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, etc.

take the politics out of energy.

]]> Comment #3 by wiscidea http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:02:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/3 What about...

...research and development?

Forward!

]]> What about...

...research and development?

Forward!

]]> Comment #4 by kborgia http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:15:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/4 This Article is FULL of inaccuracies

Anyone who has followed the development of the loan guarantee program knows that it is one of the most effective ways to bring new, clean energy technologies to market quickly without costing taxpayers anything. Yes, it includes nuclear, but the focus of the program is also on cellulosic biofuels, clean coal with carbon sequestration, and emission-free renewables.

The Times article is wrong to ignore the massive effects the loan guarantee program is going to have on renewables.

Further, the LG program was instituted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the recent energy bill, and it has never been "buried" by any means. Domenici has publically spoken about this program countless times, and it also has the support of a huge array of lawmakers and environmentalists.

The NY Times is so far off on this article, they should run a correction.  It's not a secret, it's not an underhanded way to promote nuclear over renewables, and it's not an irresponsibly-designed program. One would think environmentalists should be shouting this program from the hills for all it could do for renewables and cellulosic biofuels, not decrying it without examining the facts.

]]> This Article is FULL of inaccuracies

Anyone who has followed the development of the loan guarantee program knows that it is one of the most effective ways to bring new, clean energy technologies to market quickly without costing taxpayers anything. Yes, it includes nuclear, but the focus of the program is also on cellulosic biofuels, clean coal with carbon sequestration, and emission-free renewables.

The Times article is wrong to ignore the massive effects the loan guarantee program is going to have on renewables.

Further, the LG program was instituted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the recent energy bill, and it has never been "buried" by any means. Domenici has publically spoken about this program countless times, and it also has the support of a huge array of lawmakers and environmentalists.

The NY Times is so far off on this article, they should run a correction.  It's not a secret, it's not an underhanded way to promote nuclear over renewables, and it's not an irresponsibly-designed program. One would think environmentalists should be shouting this program from the hills for all it could do for renewables and cellulosic biofuels, not decrying it without examining the facts.

]]> Comment #5 by wiscidea http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:24:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/5 Psssttt...

Hey....  kborgia....

Please don't mention the support for cellulosic biofuels again... "environmentalists" despise cellulosic biofuel almost as much as they despise nuclear power.

Shhhhhh....

Forward!

]]> Psssttt...

Hey....  kborgia....

Please don't mention the support for cellulosic biofuels again... "environmentalists" despise cellulosic biofuel almost as much as they despise nuclear power.

Shhhhhh....

Forward!

]]> Comment #6 by kborgia http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:28:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/6 re: Psssttt...

what is the opposition to cellulosic, by the way?

]]> re: Psssttt...

what is the opposition to cellulosic, by the way?

]]> Comment #7 by Laurence Aurbach http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/ Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:40:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/50-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-nuclear-power-the-public-teat-suckingest-/7 Let's review

So, let's review how the Department of Energy proposes to allocate its requested $9 billion in loan guarantees:

Within DOE's FY'08 budget request to guarantee up to $9 billion in loans, DOE has proposed to guarantee $4 billion in loans for central power generation facilities such as nuclear facilities or carbon sequestration optimized coal power plants; $4 billion in loans for projects that promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels; and $1 billion in loans for projects using new technologies for electric transmission facilities or renewable power generation systems.

As I figure it, that's 44% for nuclear and coal; 44% for ethanol, NGL and CTL; and some portion (probably an exceedingly small portion) of 12% for renewables.

Sounds about par for the course. Billions for nukes and fossil fuels, crumbs for renewables.

Ped Shed Blog

]]> Let's review

So, let's review how the Department of Energy proposes to allocate its requested $9 billion in loan guarantees:

Within DOE's FY'08 budget request to guarantee up to $9 billion in loans, DOE has proposed to guarantee $4 billion in loans for central power generation facilities such as nuclear facilities or carbon sequestration optimized coal power plants; $4 billion in loans for projects that promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels; and $1 billion in loans for projects using new technologies for electric transmission facilities or renewable power generation systems.

As I figure it, that's 44% for nuclear and coal; 44% for ethanol, NGL and CTL; and some portion (probably an exceedingly small portion) of 12% for renewables.

Sounds about par for the course. Billions for nukes and fossil fuels, crumbs for renewables.

Ped Shed Blog

]]>