Energy Bill Blues
This article from the Palm Beach Desert Sun inspired me to take a look at what could be good about Bush's new Energy Bill. I went to the Department of Energy website and found a list of things that are supposed to be positive for the people. However, all of the perks for those wishing to use alternative, renewable energy sources are for energy sources that really aren't currently feasible. For instance:
What scares me most are the little things. The Desert Sun article I mentioned earlier ends with this:
"Consumers can receive a credit of up to 30% of the cost, or up to $2,000, for installing solar-powered hot-water systems used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming "pools and hot tubs."I live in Washington State where it essentially rains for nine months out of the year. We can't exactly collect sun to use for heating purposes. But since there's such a great lot of perks for nuclear energy I was thinking I could put a nuclear reactor in backyard. That way I'd have hot water to wash my tail and extra limbs whenever I wanted. I know, I'm exaggerating, that's the point. This bill is a gross exaggeration helping no one except big companies who want to make massive profit on dangerous, overpriced reactors.
What scares me most are the little things. The Desert Sun article I mentioned earlier ends with this:
"The energy bill's relaxed insurance provisions will facilitate the inevitable risk taking by the new project's investors. But like the badly needed oil refining capacity, nuclear utilization will also have to stand the test of profitability. Unlike every other one of the world's nations utilizing nuclear power, American nuclear power stations are not subsidized by the government and must be able to function profitably in the private business sector."What Bush is doing is making it almost impossible for private businesses not to profit from nuclear power stations. He's essentially throwing money their way and relaxing all sorts of rules to push this nuclear renaissance. If he's making regulations more lenient in one area what is going to stop him from making them lenient in others? Safety, for instance.
posted by Sara Ch. at 1:43 PM
1 Comments:
It's good that you've figured out that solar doesn't work. However,
>>What Bush is doing is making it almost impossible for private businesses not to profit from nuclear power stations.
is wrong. Nuclear power plant operators pay 88% of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget out-of-pocket in fees (plus whatever the NRC wants to take from anyone, anytime--in $900,000 chunks). Plants have to meet standards applied nowhere else, for political reasons, and were extremely expensive to build in the first place. The only way to prevent nuclear power plants from being a bottomless money pit is to license the CANDU 6 without changes, force operators to close the fuel cycle, establish one permit for site, construction, and operation, prohibit unqualified intervenors (and only allow intervenors in the pre-permit phase), and completely rewite the regulations on nuclear plant construction. This would not be to make them less effective--it would be to make them actually work in the way they're supposed to. Example: your city passes an ordinance that requires all persons inside the city to wear full body armor 24/7, paid for out-of-pocket by citizens, who have to pay for regular inspections, as well as a fee toward the disposal of used body armor, which never gets done and is used to pay for the mayor's pet projects (On top of that, a nominal tax break instituted by a merciful State government is attacked as a subsidy by various Concerned Parent groups). That is a ridiculous regulation. But it's tough. "Loosening public safety regulations" by not requiring everyone to wear full body armor is not going to harm anybody, and has many positive results. In the case of nuclear energy, loosening regulations to the point of safety plus a margin (the procedure used everywhere else, i.e., a 5% margin not a 200% margin) would allow the replacement of coal generators in the US with nuclear equivalents, saving 30,000 lives every year.
News flash: nuclear power plants are not profitable at all, or more would have been built. Guess why they're overpriced: nuclear power plants are 300% overbuilt in some places, even components that are put under the same conditions as, say, a coal plant. A nuclear reactor could be put in the place of every coal burner in every coal-fired generator in this country, and there would be no problems. That's how similar they are, beyond the way heat is generated. But the nuclear equivalent is vastly overbuilt. Why? Political pressure.
Give me an example of a problem that could happen at a modern reactor that could result in injury, damage to the environment, or property damage. If you can't, or even if your problem is less of a problem than those caused by the alternatives, nuclear power plants are safe. If you have a better definition of safety I'd like to hear it.
What's so wrong with subsidies in general? Is it not the government's job to promote the well-being of its citizens through regulations? If there is a matter of pressing need which private groups are not handling, should the government not ensure that it happens? Subsidies are usually used to fund mandates, which is essential if you would like to have your mandate actually work. I would like to note, also, that robbing Accounts Receivable to pay Accounts Payable--the situation with almost all nuclear energy "subsidies"--is not a subsidy.
[You're also equating mutations that are physically impossible (to say the least) with a 5% increase in radiation levels. You could get a 100% increase going from Florida to Denver.]
Post a Comment
<< Home