Nuclear energy high on Senate's climate agenda

[phantom power]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – With crucial global climate talks less than a month away, US senators appear to be betting on nuclear energy as the key to finally passing sweeping domestic climate change legislation.

After shrugging off a boycott by Republicans who opposed the measure and mostly shunned the debate, Democrats pushed the legislation through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, with only one opposition lawmaker voting in favor on November 5.

Faced with these difficult beginnings, the bill's chief author Senator John Kerry agreed to revise the text in cooperation with Republican Lindsey Graham and independent Joe Lieberman to garner more support from the opposition.

...

"Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets," Kerry and Graham wrote in an editorial published by The New York Times last month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091115/sc_afp/climatewarminguspoliticsnuclearenergy

[leveymg]

1. Every dollar for nukes is a dollar less for solar/wind generation.

Screw them. This is not Kerry's greatest moment.

[karynnj]

4. You ignore the fact that dollars for nuclear research may allow this to pass

Senator Kerry has fought this issue for decades starting back to when he was on Gore's Commerce sub-committee which had hearings on this. The fact is this might be needed to get the dollars for wind and solar and to get a cap and trade system.

[Nederland]

2. Kerry is a wise man

This is a rare instance of the politics and environmental aspects of an issue lining up perfectly.

[kristopher]

3. No it isn't

As reply #1 notes, the opportunity costs are unacceptable.

If it happens it is a case of political blackmail to support an economic boondoogle - exactly the same selfish tactic the farm lobby has been using for years.

[karynnj]

5. The fact is a bill which does not allow reseacrch dollars

going to nuclear and to coal (which if anything, is even less likely to lead to a usable solution) will not pass. I'm sure that Kerry could write a brilliant piece of legislation that does only the ecologically best things. It would also lose by a large margin - accomplishing nothing.

The fact is that when you have 14 Democratic senators, including people like DU favorite Franken and Feingold, wanting coal plants to get 100% of their current carbon output in free waivers, it is clear that Kerry has to give something to people not on board.

[kristopher]

6. Exactly.

Research dollars is what I'd expect as a sop to this lobby (coal and nuclear are the same economic interest group).

I don't know Franken's position on energy.

[karynnj]

8. It was unfair to pick on Franken and Feingold, as there are 14 Senators who signed the letter

Kerry really needs to get these people to see that, if they believe the science, what they are asking is not compatible with dealing with climate change. They should be lobbying for measures that will make the transition less painful for their constituents, but unless that research pulls a rabbit out of a hat and surprises the scientific community, coal is not acceptable is too dirty and its use needs to be sharply lower soon.

Here's what the article says:

Democratic senators affirmed their allegiance to the profits of polluting industry at the expense of the health and jobs of their constituents. In a letter to Senate leaders, a bloc of senators with powerful coal interests in their states called for "fair emissions allowances in climate change legislation." Their definition of "fair," unfortunately, turns out to be full taxpayer subsidies for global warming polluters. They call for the free allocation of pollution permits to electric utilities to be distributed "fully based on emissions":

We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector—and thus, electricity consumers—be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.

The signatories on the letter defending coal-heavy polluters are Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Udall (D-Colo), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

Their demand is a basic violation of a core principle of environmental economics—that companies should pay based on their pollution. The transition-period formula in the House bill, Waxman-Markey, and the current Senate legislation, Kerry-Boxer, at least distributes the free permits based 50 percent on electricity production. This formula was negotiated with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and has received the endorsement of the Edison Electric Institute, the largest lobbying organization for the nation’s utilities. In contrast, President Obama called for a full auction of pollution permits to avoid rewarding polluters at the taxpayers’ expense, instead dedicating the revenues to creating jobs, lowering taxes on the middle class, and building a clean energy economy.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal/

I really don't know what Kerry can do to bring these people to accept what we have to do. There is no one working harder or better on this in the Senate. Kerry may very well fail on this, but it won't be for lack of trying, lack of planning, or failing to reach out to answer the questions of non committed Senators. (That seems true from today's NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/16/16climatewire-senate-climate-bill-faces-narrow-window-for-82097.html?pagewanted=1

What I don't get is why the goal is not going after the list of coal Senators asking them -

Do you believe the science?
Do you understand the goal of cap and trade?
Do you understand if coal can not be cleaned, it can not be the solution? Shouldn't they be asking about transition help for workers?

He may need to get scientists, environmentalists, and economists from their state to speak to them.

The reactions defending those Senators recently on DU surprised me - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=222

[Nederland]

7. Good point

It's a shame that money is going to be wasted on coal, I'm just glad an excellent alternative like nuclear isn't getting completely ignored.

[kristopher]

9. Very few people call for "ignoring nuclear"

We should maintain the present percentage of generation from nuclear (roughly 19%) until the renewable segment has been built out, then continued growth of renewables would begin to displace the nuclear sector.

That will require building a few new reactors as aging plants are shut down.

Beyond that, no further funds should be allocated to nuclear except advanced research.

[karynnj]

10. I assume that you would include research into the waste problem

I don't think this has a good long term solution yet.