Loan guarantee program is on hold, creating uncertainty for clean energy projects like Cape Wind

[bananas]

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/16/loan-guarantee-program-renewable-energy-projects/

Loan guarantee program is on hold, creating uncertainty for clean energy projects like Cape Wind
May 16, 2011

The U.S. Department of Energy sent out letters last week to several dozen renewable energy developers, saying their applications were on hold due to a lack of funds available in the 1705 loan guarantee program created under the stimulus package. Here’s what that means.

The program, which has provided billions of dollars in guarantees and helped companies raise almost $30 billion for projects, has been instrumental in helping grow large-scale, first-of-a-kind renewable energy projects around the country.

But the program has faced some major political challenges. The most recent was a House Continuing Resolution proposal in April which cut the 1705 program entirely, making renewable energy companies and advocates nervous about the status of their projects in the queue. Under that same proposal, the 1703 loan guarantee program – which, due to differences in how a developer pays back the “credit subsidy,” favors much larger nuclear projects – was not touched.

In political terms: The program that backed renewable energy developers was gutted to save money, while the program that favored nuclear energy was left alone.

In the final Continuing Resolution, however, the 1705 program was restored. The remaining funds were enough to provide loan guarantees to about 15 projects.

<snip>

The nuclear industry is going to destroy the environment.
Nuclear energy is NOT going to be able to stop global warming.
At most it can only provide a small fraction of the solution to global warming - it isn't needed at all, and now we can see that it's taking away funding from the solutions that are needed.
The nuclear loans are for a handful of reactors that will be insignificant to global warming and won't come online for about decade (if ever). The nuclear "solution" is to keep burning coal while wasting money trying to build these obsolete dinosaurs.
None of the major environmental organizations support nuclear energy as a solution to global warming - because it isn't.

[flamingdem]

1. This is bad news nt

[Autumn]

2. Not good at all,

"In political terms: The program that backed renewable energy developers was gutted to save money, while the program that favored nuclear energy was left alone."

K/R

[FBaggins]

3. Shouldn't be a problem

Only nuclear power requires government subsidy to exist. Renewable projects have no trouble getting financing.

:sarcasm:

On edit - Can't say that I'm pleased to see "stimulus" funds that weren't used when we most needed stimulating... but that's another discussion. Loan gurantee funds like these should be available to just this kind of project - entirely apart from stimulating the economy.

[NickB79]

4. This is why I'm a bit sceptical about claims that renewables will supply X amount of power

By whatever decade you choose to discuss. They are still vulnerable, far more so than other forms of energy generation IMO, to political attacks like this one.

If something happened to derail our current economic recovery and send us back into another recession/depression, I have no doubt that funding for renewables would be slashed all over again as cries of "we must tighten our belts" and "we must fight the deficit" were heard all throughout Washington DC.