Blatant Reality

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how much the government subsidizes different energy sources. The kicker was just how much green energy was costing the American taxpayer.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

 

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

I personally find that absolutely outrageous that the government would be wasting that much money on wind, solar, and clean coal when nuclear power is so “cheap” in comparison. Even the founder of Greenpeace thinks nuclear energy is “green” so why aren’t we focusing on building more nuclear power plants?

I mean, if the government is going to be hellbent of subsidizing something it might as well be something that we can at least get a good return off of.

I don’t know if you have heard about the Utah nuclear waste company that wants to import waste from Italy but now they are becoming one of the largest contributors to several politicians, including one from SC. I’m guessing people aren’t really to hot about the idea of having to ship nuclear waste all the way across the country.

Since 2005, the company’s political action committee, executives and investors have poured nearly $400,000 into congressional campaigns through January, up from about $40,000 in the four previous years, Federal Election Commission reports show.

 

The company’s growing influence in Washington will be tested this year as it tries to kill a bill that would ban the importation of low-level radioactive foreign waste, which would be disposed at its dump in western Utah’s desert.

 

“I’m sure this means many millions of dollars to them, so I’m sure they’re going to be working hard to stop it,” said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the bill’s co-sponsor.

 

EnergySolutions increased lobbyist spending from $680,000 in 2006 to more than $1 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

Since Utah has this tiny problem of being a landlocked state, the nuclear waste would obviously have to first make its way through a port. What port is it? Well, as the saying goes, all you have to do is follow the money. Guess where the biggest chunk of money has gone too. None other than South Carolina’s very own Lindsay Graham.

The biggest recipient of EnergySolutions’ recent spending spree is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an ardent supporter of nuclear energy.

 

Graham has received $24,000 in campaign contributions from EnergySolutions’ PAC and more than $19,000 from company investors and executives since December 2006.

 

He is encouraging the NRC to allow the construction of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina, where EnergySolutions manages the site through which the Italian waste could be imported.

 

The company wants to import the waste through the ports of Charleston, S.C., or New Orleans for processing in Tennessee.

Now I’m not bashing on Senator Graham because I, for one, am all for nuclear energy. Therefore, I know that this problem of shipping nuclear waste from one place to another is a major issue that will have to be dealt with. The fact that Charleston would be the main port for something like this is great because there have been recent reports that Charleston’s port has slowly been receiving less shipments. This will be great to pump some extra cash into the economy.

However, South Carolina’s main source of income is tourism and Charleston is a major tourist city. Therefore, if there were to be an accident dealing with nuclear waste in Charleston, a very vital of the state’s livelihood would be gone. What this means is that even though I am all for nuclear energy and even possibly this Utah deal, there better be some hell of regulations to ensure that everything goes smoothly and safely

Well, you really shouldn’t be. Even with the promise of many more nuclear power plants, the odds are that we will develop new ways to use the nuclear waste. This is all because of the wonders of a capitalistic society.

The gist of it is that since the demand for uranium will increase, the price will increase also. The higher prices of uranium will make it economically feasible to find new ways to process the waste that could be potentially cheaper than obtaining uranium itself. I’m no scientist or chemist but from my understanding of nuclear material, you could potentially derive energy from it until it has decayed into lead. Thats a lot of potential energy stored in nuclear waste.

Don’t think that this will happen? Well I’m sorry to burst your bubble but talks are already beginning about this.

In 2000, uranium was selling for about $7 per pound. By last summer it was at $140 per pound. Prices have dropped back now, to about $73 per pound.

 

But that still means the uranium that could be recovered from the waste could be worth about $7.6 billion, according to the federal Government Accountability Office.

 

“Suddenly, this waste nobody wanted has become very valuable,” said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District, in which the Paducah plant is located.

Where there is a demand, someone will always find ways to supply, for a small price of course.

Southern Co. filed an application yesterday to build two new reactors at an existing nuclear power plant site in Georgia.

Southern Co., the biggest U.S. power producer, is seeking permission from the federal government to build two additional nuclear reactors and almost double output at its Vogtle site in Georgia.

 

The company is proposing to add two 1,150-megawatt reactors to the two-unit site about 20 miles south of Augusta. Atlanta-based Southern’s application was the first of two submitted Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. South Carolina-based SCANA Corp. said it also filed an application.

 

“We expect demand for electricity in the Southeast, specifically in Georgia, to increase significantly by 2015 and beyond,” Barnie Beasley, president of Southern’s nuclear unit, said in a statement. “Nuclear power is a safe, reliable, cost-effective power source that has a low impact on the environment.”

As I stated back in October, Egypt is looking to make a deal with Russia to get nuclear reactors. Now it seems that they are just a couple days from signing a deal that would allow Russia to build reactors in Egypt.

The document will be signed during a forthcoming visit by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to Moscow on March 24-25, Gheit said.

 

“This agreement will enable Egypt to use Russia’s extensive experience in the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” Gheit said.

 

A source in Egypt’s electricity and energy ministry earlier said the document will lay the foundation for nuclear energy cooperation between Egypt and Russia and will strengthen relations between Russian companies and Egypt.

You know why they picked Russia over the US to build these reactors? Its because the United States imposes “tough restrictions, including regular inspections and control.” And you know why we do all those “tough restrictions” and “inspections?” It’s because we want to be sure that this nuclear technology doesn’t fall into the wrong hands that could use it against our strategic ally, Israel.

You would think that something as big as this would be getting a lot more media attention.

In order to thwart a “Mad Max” like future, an Australian professor argued at a recent energy conference that Australia needs to start building Nuclear Power plants.

He says wind and solar power will not be viable to meet energy demands when the electricity grid eventually fails under extreme pressure.

 

“They are straining right now and a few more years of growth, a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable; that we need electricity and that electricity needs to be reliable,” he said.

 

“And to get base load power we do not want to have coal generation; the only sensible and sustainable base load power is uranium.

 

“If people start dying in hospitals because there’s no electricity, if people can’t get water because there’s no electricity to pump water from dams, if people can’t keep their food cool because there’s no electricity for refrigeration, then I think there’ll be a very, very, very rapid change of opinion.”

Unless you want Mel Gibson riding around on a motorcycle in the Australian Outback, I would heed this professor’s warning.

A new nuclear center will be opening up in northern Lancaster Country and is expected to create 400 jobs over the coming years.

The site will house the URS division’s commercial nuclear energy engineering and construction business. It will provide licensing, design, engineering, procurement and construction services for new nuclear-generation facilities.

 

“The Washington division has been providing nuclear expertise since the industry’s infancy, and we are well-positioned to help our clients build the next generation of plants needed to meet the growing demand for clean and dependable energy,” says Tom Zarges, president of URS’ Washington division. “With new nuclear facilities expected to be concentrated in the southeastern part of the country, South Carolina is an ideal location for our URS nuclear center headquarters.”

The promise of nuclear energy and new jobs: sounds like a good deal to me.

I never thought I would be saying this, but I agree with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore’s position on nuclear energy.

“The fact is that nuclear energy is already one of the two technologies that is resulting in the most carbon dioxide reductions than anything else,” he said. The other was hydroelectric energy.

 

“I find it logically inconsistent for people in the environmental movement who say that climate change threatens the very existence of our civilisation, and threatens to drive millions of species into extinction, and then they are opposed to one of the most important technologies that could bring about a resolution to that problem – replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy,” he reiterated.

Even though I don’t agree with the whole idea that global warming “threatens the very existence of our civili[z]ation,” I do agree that it is completely illogical of environmental groups that support this dire view not to go with the nuclear option. Theoretically, if fossil fuels are going to kill us in under 100 years, nuclear energy is the only thing that we currently have on the table that would greatly reduce our emissions in time to save us. All the other “clean energy” ideas like wind or solar power rely to much on outside factors and aren’t efficient enough. Thats why nuclear energy is so great, it isn’t reliant on any outside factors (other than legislation) and can be placed almost anywhere.

An Iowa House of Representatives subcommittee recently passed a proposal onto the House that would offer grants to those who want to build a nuclear power plant.

Lawmakers are considering offering more incentives to expand nuclear energy in Iowa.

 

So far 57 representatives have signed onto a proposal to allow nuclear energy projects to apply for millions of dollars in state grant money. The bill has already passed a House subcommittee and heads to the full House Commerce Committee for consideration.

 

“This is, in my opinion, the right direction for the Legislature to send the signal that yes, we are interested in you guys … making this investment, growing the work force,” said Rep. Kraig Paulsen, a Hiawatha Republican who supports the proposal.

Idaho’s state legislature House Revenue and Taxation Committee has printed up a tax incentive proposal for nuclear energy companies.

Two proposed tax incentives that would benefit the nuclear power industry cleared the first hurdle in the Idaho Legislature this morning.

 

The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted to print proposals brought by Tim Solomon, executive director of the Regional Development Alliance in Idaho Falls.

 

The first proposal would exempt processing materials used for the production of energy from sales and use tax. The second proposal would cap net the taxable property value at $400 million for projects that involve an investment of $1 billion or more within seven years.

 

Eastern Idaho has an opportunity to attract French nuclear services company Areva, but the energy production-exemption proposal would create opportunity for greater investment statewide, Solomon told committee members.

The article makes it clear a little bit later that this is strictly going to be a vote on whether to give tax incentives to nuclear energy companies, not on the environmental impacts of nuclear energy. Guess they want to limit the amount of environmental protest this issue might cause.