Subsidize my love

Grist asks McCain about contradictory messages on nuclear subsidies

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 3:34 PM on 15 May 2008

John McCain hosted a call-in with bloggers today following his address in Columbus, Ohio, in which he outlined his priorities for a first term in office. Grist got in a couple of questions:

You mentioned climate and energy in your speech today, that they would be among your top priorities, and that has also been the focus of several speeches this week. You say in general that you're against subsidies, even for renewable energy, but you said today that you'd like to see support for nuclear energy, which would cost taxpayers a lot of money, and you also mentioned coal. How do you reconcile this?

I think the biggest problems with nuclear power are of our own making. Jimmy Carter decided back in '77 or '78, I don't remember exactly what year it was, but he said that we wouldn't reprocess spent nuclear fuel. That was a huge setback. As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we set in place a regulatory process that sometimes means it takes 10 to 15 years before we're able to get a nuclear power plant in operation. We've asked businesses to make huge investments that don't show returns to their investors. The Yucca Mountain gridlock is remarkable. It's remarkable that we have not been able to find a place in America where we can store spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste, and we end up in the worst of all worlds with spent nuclear fuel from power plants all over America, which poses significant threats to our national security.

I intend to fix all those things, and I intend to bound everybody together to fix those things. And I want to encourage peer research and development in a broad variety of areas, including development of a battery that will take a car 100 miles before it has to be plugged in and then it can be reenergized in an hour or so. I intend to push very hard for nuclear power, because I believe that nuclear power has got to be a component of us addressing the issue of climate change and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. And I am unashamed and unembarrassed by my advocacy for nuclear power.

You also talked about coal, and federal support for coal, in your speech today.

Clean coal technology we certainly need to make investments in -- pure R&D. I have always supported government investment in pure R&D, whether it resulted in the invention of the Internet or any of the other significant technological breakthroughs. We have some of the best minds in America in our labs. I do draw a line between pure research and development and letting the free enterprise system take over and move forward with the technologies.

So there you have it.

Except that McCain's "advocacy" and "support" for nuclear power have him calling for a lot more than just R&D funding. The climate plan he unveiled this week includes "loan guarantees for the construction of new [nuclear] plants and a program to assist with the first-of-its-kind engineering needs," plus "measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions."

So he's against "subsidies," except when they are "support." Even when "support" means tons of taxpayer cash.

The National Review put up a transcript of the call, in which they apparently deemed my question, and McCain's answer, unworthy of transcribing. Instead we get this, which is amusingly indicative of the seriousness with which the NRO types approach energy issues:

Kate Shephard [sic]: Energy independence and nuclear power?

McCain: The biggest problems with nuclear power are of our own making. Carter said we wouldn�t reprocess nuclear fuel, that was a huge setback ...

Guess that's that! The NR blogger also notes that "John McCain seemed feisty today, even in the face of some somewhat skeptical questions from bloggers."

Someone else on the call asked him this question near the end, which NR also didn't bother to transcribe:

Would it be fair to say that you would be open to appointing Democrats in your administration?

I would be more than open. I will appoint Democrats to my administration.

For story: Subsidize my love
8 Comments | Post a Comment

paying attention

"measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions..."

Good to see that he's not left investors out in the cold on this one...the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety and storage categories.

But how many new manufacturing jobs can there be that aren't actually just mining or construction jobs?

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 3:45 PM on 15 May 2008

Hoffner's anger management issues

...the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety ...

Wouldn't they be similarly encouraged if Hoffner would get some professional help to stop him from physically 'acting out'?

Loan guarantees make sense as a way to keep government honest. If it allows another 100 GW of nuclear capacity to go online, additional uranium will be required that at present prices would cost $3 billion a year. Natural gas used in its place would cost about $60 billion, including royalties that must substantially exceed $3 billion.

In the past, footdragging on nuclear has been very lucrative for City Hall; that has to stop. Loan guarantees mean their ill-gotten gains are taken from them and given to the lenders, and the prospect that this will happen makes them inclined not to bother to ill-get them in the first place.

Thus, gross-rats groups are likely to find their "interventions" becoming their own reward.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

by GRLCowan at 4:57 PM on 15 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Ah, I get it now

If it's a fledgling industry without a lot of clout trying to get a few million bucks to get off the ground, it's "subsidies."

If it's an established industry with tons of lobbyists going to bat for billions in loan guarantees and billions more in hopes of making their unproven technology work ... it's "research and development."

Oh, and when Republicans are trying to cut the estate tax, it's "fighting for small business owners." When they're trying to subsidize Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Nuke, they're ... hypocrites.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

by TheGreenMiles at 6:53 PM on 15 May 2008

Where should we put tax money subsidies

Why not offer subsidies to home owners that put in solar panels and wind collectors? Lowering energy demands instead of trying frantically to meet them.

Green | Bowtrol Cleanse | Web Design Indiana

by green8659 at 7:43 PM on 15 May 2008

Yep

Good old subsidy diversion green. Cash out of the (corporate welfare subsidies) pockets of exxonmob and nuclear contractors, straight into homeowner's and farmer's pockets.

To help pay for solar panels, wind farms on farms, and farm biogas renewable power grid backup. 10 cents per kwh, metered by utilities, checks written by government.

We are impractical populists though. So forget that. Cap and trade and clean coal and newers safer nuclear power and agribizz fuel farming.

Those are practical plans acceptable to corporate leaders. We are obviously quite naive and uninformed, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:11 PM on 15 May 2008

McCain is on the right track.

" the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety and storage categories. "

Given that there've been no major accidents in the last 20 years, while coal kills thousands each year there's not much room for increasing safety.

" But how many new manufacturing jobs can there be that aren't actually just mining construction jobs? "

Mining and construction jobs pay very well and there are also high paying manufacturing jobs making pumps valves motors and heat exchangers, control systems etc.

" Except that McCain's "advocacy" and "support" for nuclear power have him calling for a lot more than just R&D funding. The climate plan he unveiled this week includes "loan guarantees for the construction of new [nuclear] plants and a program to assist with the first-of-its-kind engineering needs," plus "measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions. "

Yep, that's what the D in R&D is for.

McCain is right about R&D. We should raise R&D to $90 billion per year, just 2.25¢ per kilowatt hour, to maximize our options. Existing nuclear power plants would earn $18 billion per year, enough to build at least one prototype of each new reactor design, and to finance the design and construction of a facility to build floating nuclear power plants.

Wind and solar buffs want to spend big bucks implementing existing technology, which will take us down the road behind Germany and Denmark, to high energy prices, 30 - 40 cents per kWh.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-0 ...

Each one cent / kWh increase will cost Americans $40 billion per year. R&D is cheap.

Fossil fuels are still abundant, and will be so for many years. They provide about 70% of our electricity, 85% of all the energy that supports our lives.

Joseph Romm says we don't need more R&D, we should start building expensive wind and solar now. If we follow that advice we will be in huge trouble down the road when fossil fuel is really running out. We may have to buy expensive floating nuclear plants from other countries, with severely inflated dollars. I would rather be selling those plants to other countries.

A huge R&D program maximizes the probability that we will develop better technology than fission, which makes it the most anti nuclear policy of all. Our goal should be to create energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuel, so the entire world can afford them

Actually the best thing McCain could do for energy would be to include a course in Energy Engineering in every high school curriculum. That way future generations of Americans would be able to make decisions about energy based on facts and logic rather than fear and emotion.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 8:57 PM on 15 May 2008

What counts is special tax revenue, net of subsidy

Persons offended by nuclear energy's cutting into government's fossil fuel earnings seem convinced they can prove PA is a subsidy because nuclear is dangerous, and nuclear is dangerous because PA is a subsidy. As the late Isaac Asimov said, reasoning in a circle is the chief delight of the intellectually feeble.

Or, in this case, of 'zoomers'.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

by GRLCowan at 7:25 AM on 16 May 2008

Subsidies

"Why not offer subsidies to home owners that put in solar panels and wind collectors? Lowering energy demands instead of trying frantically to meet them."

Don't we already do this? I thought the renewable tax credit still existed (except for those of us that are subject to AMT). Of course, it doesn't seem that these subsidies have had much impact on the energy usage of the US.

by KenG at 10:29 AM on 16 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.