Why There’s $54.5 Billion for Nuclear Power in Obama’s Budget:
Obama’s budget for 2011 is filled with peculiarities. There are a few primary points of interest when it comes to energy–the empty cap and trade framework outlined within, the severing of multi-billion fossil fuel subsidies (which I’ll get to in a post later today), and perhaps most surprisingly, over $54 billion for nuclear power. That’s up almost $20 billion from the year before.
Details on More Nuclear Loans
The move expands from $36 billion to $54.5 billion the amount of loan guarantees the federal government is willing to award nuclear power projects. But why? Why expand nuclear loan guarantees–which weren’t even capitalized on last year–when the budget is already, as everyone and their mother knows, strapped for cash?
Conventional wisdom says that it’s a move designed to bring more Republicans to the table for energy reform negotiations. But conventional wisdom also holds that passing a climate bill this year is unlikely at best. Perhaps Obama simply wants to demonstrate his goodwill and put some muscle behind his calls for bipartisanship, especially on energy issues. The nuclear industry is strongly aligned with the GOP, and conservatives have been calling for more nuclear power for as long as I can remember.
Let me suggest the following mental experiment:
Imagine a US in which there are precisely no subsidies or tax breaks or land deals or loan guarantees or other forms of support for any form of energy. Not one cent for fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, tidal geothermal, biofuels, etc. They’re treated no differently than any other US business. Additionally, we have a price on carbon, through either an outright carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. (Any government funding goes to research and development, not deploying technology, plus there are regulations one would expect to protect the public from less-than-desirable behavior of companies providing such critical services.)
How long would nuclear power be considered viable, even with the lack of subsidies for wind, solar, and other renewables? Keep in mind that the companies involved in all projects and ongoing operations would be responsible for the cost of all failures plus procuring their own liability insurance.
Isn’t this exactly what the political right, which never saw a proposal for a nuclear power plant it didn’t like, and also claims a deep disdain for all forms of government “meddling in the market and picking winners”, would want? We’ve been doing commercial nuclear power for just over 50 years, so by now we surely know enough for this technology to stand on its own two feet, pay its own way, and be free of the shackles imposed by those bloodless Washington bureaucrats, right?
Hello…?
Is this thing on?
