Billions of New Nuke Giveaways in Kerry-Lieberman Bill Exposed

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/17-7

Published on Thursday, June 17, 2010 by Friends of the Earth
Billions of New Nuke Giveaways in Kerry-Lieberman Bill Exposed
Earth Track Analysis Finds That Just Two of the Subsidies Add Another $1.3 Billion to $3 Billion in Tax Breaks Per Reactor
Statement by Friends of the Earth (FOE)

<The Nuc>lear industry could end up facing no risk under massive tax break subsidies in the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill, according to an important new analysis conducted for Friends of the Earth by the research organization Earth Track. These tax breaks totaling $9.7 billion to $57.3 billion (depending on the type and number of reactors) would come on top of the Kerry-Lieberman measure’s lucrative $35.5 billion addition to the more than $22.5 billion in loan guarantees already slated for nuclear power.

Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said: “Doling out an additional $1.3-$3 billion in tax breaks per new reactor means the industry would be at the table playing almost entirely with taxpayer money. Industry will have little to lose when a reactor goes belly up. While taxpayers are bankrolling the industry’s nuclear gamble they would share in none of the reactor’s financial returns. In fact, all taxpayers will receive if the reactors are built is responsibility for disposing of the waste. By contrast, investors stand to make billions with no risk should their reactor gambit goes belly up and enter bankruptcy.”

Earth Track Founder Doug Koplow said: “These substantial tax breaks for new reactors greatly impede market access for competing energy sources and worsen the already substantial risks to taxpayers from a nuclear build-out. As has clearly been shown in U.S. mortgage markets, the likelihood of bad financial decisions rises sharply if only other people’s capital is at risk. Kerry-Lieberman’s nuclear tax breaks do just this by replacing investor equity with taxpayer money, and allowing investment tax credits to be claimed even before the reactor is operating. The provision to recover credits in the event a reactor is cancelled or suspended is unlikely to be effective in the most likely cause of termination – a bankruptcy due to poor economics.”

more...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Disappointed in Kerry...Just what I would have expected from LIEberman

[mitchtv]

2. and we think an oils spill is catastrophic

just wait til they bring us Chernobyl II (subsidized)

[politicasista]

14. delete n/t

[Angry Dragon]

3. I guess when you spend somebody else's money

Money is no object

[Gravel Democrat]

4. Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act (can't get rid of the space but that's the link-just cut,paste,delete space)

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government)

The Price-Anderson Act has been criticized by various think tanks and environmental organizations, including Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace International, Public Citizen and the Cato Institute. Public Citizen has been particularly critical of Price-Anderson; it claims that the Act understates the risks inherent in atomic power, does not require reactors to carry adequate insurance, and would therefore result in taxpayers footing most of the bill for a catastrophic accident.<3> An analysis by economists Heyes and Heyes (1998) places the value of the government insurance subsidy at $2.3 million per reactor-year, or $237 million annually.<4> In 2008 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the value of the subsidy at only $600,000 per reactor per year. <3> Due to the structure of the liability immunities as the number of nuclear plants in operation is reduced the public liability in case of an accident goes up.<5>

The free government-granted insurance given to for-profit nuclear plant operators in the Price-Anderson Act has been used as an example of corporate welfare by Ralph Nader.<5>

Using nuclear fission to boil water is insane.

Here's why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_incident

Sooner or later, as we've seen in the Gulf, the worst thing always happens. With Nuclear, we're passing the worst down generations.

[MadHound]

5. Gee, and solar and wind are already cheaper than nuclear,

Now with these subsidies the government is going to make nuclear even more costly to the taxpayer and citizen.

All for a technology that isn't green and has been shown to destroy entire regions when it goes wrong. Hmmm, and these are the best and brightest in our government?

[glitch]

6. I don't think anybody ever said that about Lieberman.

At least not with a straight face. He is also trying to pass a law which allows the President to shut down the Internet. In an emergency, of course.

[MadHound]

8. Well, yeah, you've got a point there.

But what's sad is that this is being pushed by Democrats, both in Congress and the WH.

And the sad thing is we simply don't need nuclear, not if if invested in solar and wind.

[glitch]

15. I know. The far right turn our government has taken is worse than sad

it's deeply disturbing.

And investing more money into centralized power like nukes over distributed like solar is authoritarian. IMNSHO.

[politicasista]

13. Strange that whatever Kerry does is never good enough for some

Just like President Obama, he can never seem to catch a break here.

It is a shame that his environmental record gets trashed at site (and no Liberman fan here either) that is a place for Democrats, Liberals, Progressives. Interesting the same people who praise Obama trash Kerry. Maybe just bitter supporters from 2004. Sure Obama thinks otherwise appreciates that. Too bad some don't.

It is a shame that people in this thread slamming the Senator have not called Senators that support coal (aka favorite DU liberals) and encourage them to support the bill. Something is better than nothing. Or people could be unhappy that it isn't their favorite liberal/progressive leading on this issue.


Maybe. :shrug:

[Gravel Democrat]

9. Truly sad that we're way behind Spain and Germany (of all places)

Germany isn't known as a sunspot after all.

Nevertheless:

Solarpark Waldpolenz (40.000 kW) bei Leipzig

Look at how far behind the US is:
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php


Spain


Germany


Germany


Spain


Germany

The list goes on, just like the bilking of the poor US taxpayer. So it is.

[MadHound]

10. Oh I know,

What's really sad is that we could have reduced our oil consumption in half, in half! if we had embarked upon a crash course in renewable energy sources thirty years ago, and that was using late seventies tech.

But instead, people like Germany, Spain, and Denmark (who gets twenty five percent of their energy from wind turbines) are outstripping us while we're stuck with oilmageddon in the Gulf.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. Well then, I guess it's only fair that all the nuclear waste

will be stored in Massachusetts and Connecticut then. Preferably on the Lieberdouche and Kerry estates.

And any wars that are started in uranium rich countries will be fought by troops drafted from those states. No educational deferments will be allowed, in fact the draft will START with every last stinking piece of filth member of the "Skull & Bones" cell of elitist shitbags that produced the Bush Crime Family.

[guyton]

11. No new nukes until full life-cycle is feasible

There needs to be a functioning system for neutralizing the waste before we make any new plants. Not just wishful thinking that maybe our children can figure out what to do with it.

Personally, I favor tossing all of the waste into the Sun! Getting that stuff off-planet is about the only plan I can think of that's long-term enough for some of that poison.

Of course that implies safe and cheap lifting technology, but that's trivial to develop compared to building vaults in the ground that'll be safe for hundreds of thousands of years.

And who knows, maybe we could convince some Congressfools to hitch a ride with it and take an, um, tour of the disposal facility!

:think:

[politicasista]

12. delete

not worth it

[Obamanaut]

16. A pox upon those republ......er, never mind. nt