Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Nuclear Uses Brute Lobbying Force of NEI to GUT Energy Bill
Free FALLOUT Room With Every Reactor License Renewal
The emails are literally flying around the Cosmos of the Internet as activists attempt to stop the Congress and Senate from forcing us down the road to a Nuclear Renaissance by gutting out key provisions in the law for a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and all tax provisions benefiting renewables so that they could pass an energy bill through Congress before the Thanksgiving break on Friday, November 16. Pardon the french, but WTF?
A far better idea would be to leave the RPS in, and gut out the $50 BILLION in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry's new reactor builds in the form of loan guarantees. Seriously, even for those on the Pro-Nuclear side of the equation, why should citizens pay to build nuclear reactors that WE DO NOT OWN? How many American homes could be taken off the grid for that same $50 Billion dollars? There is a question I would love to see someone in the renewal/sustainable energy camp step forward and answer for the audience.
In light of Global Warming, where is the ethical sense of gutting out all federal funding for renewable forms of electricity such as solar, wind and geothermal. Such a move on the part of both the House and the Senate is not sound policy speaking, but special interest lobbying dollars hard at work in their never ending battle to override the will of the people.
Let's just suppose, that it would cost $50,000 dollars to take the average American household off of the grid through the use of solar, wind and battery storage of energy. That's 20 homes for a million bucks. So, for $50 Billion dollars, we could take conservatively 100,000 homes off the grid. If we figure the average family of four, conservatively, we greatly reduce the carbon foot print of 400,000 Americans...my guess here, is that my numbers are very conservative. For instance, what kind of price breaks could be negotiated if someone went to the combined solar, wind industry and said we'd like to hook up 100,000 homes in the next 18 months.
Some might disagree with my belief that this gutting of the RPS from the energy bill is being spear headed by the Nuclear Industry...consider these facts. First, the nuclear industry is lying, cheating and breaking the law in their efforts to relicense 104 dangerous aging reactors so that they can maintain MARKET SHARE as they attempt to license and build new replacement reactors. Even if they are successful in this, for decades they are going to basically be at a hold steady point when it comes to their share of the market. It is simply not in their best interests to see the renewal energy sector reach a market share of parity, or even superiority over nuclear power.
Simply stated, the worse case scenario for the Nuclear Industry is to see the renewal energy sector reach that proverbial TIPPING POINT where they can make renewables available to the average America home owner at an affordable price...that would break the utility industry's monopoly, and BIG MONEY does not want that to occur, even if that is in the best interest of solving Global Warming.
The Renewable Portfolio Standard's goal would be to attain a national target of getting 20-25% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2025. Accomplishing such a goal would place renewables on a par, or ahead of every electric source except for coal. Those pushing the Nuclear Renaissance Agenda are not going to let that happen.
Sadly, many of the wind industry companies have been bought out, or are controlled by companies deeply invested in Nuclear Energy, so their lobbyists to a great degree are fighting in the halls of Congress with one arm tied behind their back. Perhaps if their hands were untied, if they could or would come out to the public with the full truth, this important Renewable Portfolio Standard can be put back into the bill, but then that means people like Randall Swisher, Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) need to stop tiptoeing around the nuclear issue, and face it head on...if you sleep with the devil, you are ruled by the devil and unfortunately, in the name of Green Washing, far to many wind companies and their projects are owned and controlled by companies who are placing their big bets on the nuclear renaissance.
A far better idea would be to leave the RPS in, and gut out the $50 BILLION in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry's new reactor builds in the form of loan guarantees. Seriously, even for those on the Pro-Nuclear side of the equation, why should citizens pay to build nuclear reactors that WE DO NOT OWN? How many American homes could be taken off the grid for that same $50 Billion dollars? There is a question I would love to see someone in the renewal/sustainable energy camp step forward and answer for the audience.
In light of Global Warming, where is the ethical sense of gutting out all federal funding for renewable forms of electricity such as solar, wind and geothermal. Such a move on the part of both the House and the Senate is not sound policy speaking, but special interest lobbying dollars hard at work in their never ending battle to override the will of the people.
Let's just suppose, that it would cost $50,000 dollars to take the average American household off of the grid through the use of solar, wind and battery storage of energy. That's 20 homes for a million bucks. So, for $50 Billion dollars, we could take conservatively 100,000 homes off the grid. If we figure the average family of four, conservatively, we greatly reduce the carbon foot print of 400,000 Americans...my guess here, is that my numbers are very conservative. For instance, what kind of price breaks could be negotiated if someone went to the combined solar, wind industry and said we'd like to hook up 100,000 homes in the next 18 months.
Some might disagree with my belief that this gutting of the RPS from the energy bill is being spear headed by the Nuclear Industry...consider these facts. First, the nuclear industry is lying, cheating and breaking the law in their efforts to relicense 104 dangerous aging reactors so that they can maintain MARKET SHARE as they attempt to license and build new replacement reactors. Even if they are successful in this, for decades they are going to basically be at a hold steady point when it comes to their share of the market. It is simply not in their best interests to see the renewal energy sector reach a market share of parity, or even superiority over nuclear power.
Simply stated, the worse case scenario for the Nuclear Industry is to see the renewal energy sector reach that proverbial TIPPING POINT where they can make renewables available to the average America home owner at an affordable price...that would break the utility industry's monopoly, and BIG MONEY does not want that to occur, even if that is in the best interest of solving Global Warming.
The Renewable Portfolio Standard's goal would be to attain a national target of getting 20-25% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2025. Accomplishing such a goal would place renewables on a par, or ahead of every electric source except for coal. Those pushing the Nuclear Renaissance Agenda are not going to let that happen.
Sadly, many of the wind industry companies have been bought out, or are controlled by companies deeply invested in Nuclear Energy, so their lobbyists to a great degree are fighting in the halls of Congress with one arm tied behind their back. Perhaps if their hands were untied, if they could or would come out to the public with the full truth, this important Renewable Portfolio Standard can be put back into the bill, but then that means people like Randall Swisher, Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) need to stop tiptoeing around the nuclear issue, and face it head on...if you sleep with the devil, you are ruled by the devil and unfortunately, in the name of Green Washing, far to many wind companies and their projects are owned and controlled by companies who are placing their big bets on the nuclear renaissance.
No comments:
Post a Comment