May 14, 2009
Join the conversation at The Daily Kos.
These days, clean energy ranks right up there with Mom, apple pie and ice cream as an All-American attribute. You can barely sit through a TV show, listen to the radio, or even read a blog without coming across an ad from someone extolling the virtues of some “clean” energy form or another. Never mind that some of them—from nuclear power to “clean” coal—bear no resemblance to the cleanest solutions like wind, solar and energy efficiency. Some industries have more money to spend on ads than others….
But clean energy has become All-American for good reason: we need clean energy for the 21st century. I’m a huge clean energy advocate, and I spend my days working to encourage implementation of clean, sustainable energy technologies.
So what could be more virtuous than a federal Clean Energy Bank? On the surface, the idea sounds perfect: the federal government would set up a bank to support the development and implementation of clean energy technologies, especially those that private investors can’t or won’t fund. In fact, it’s so perfect the Senate Energy Committee has already approved the concept as part of its upcoming energy bill, and the House Energy Committee is considering adding a Clean Energy Bank proposal from genuinely clean energy advocate Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) to the Waxman-Markey cap and trade climate bill.
So why is the environmental community lining up to oppose the Clean Energy Bank and considering it must-defeat legislation? Well, there are a couple of teeny-tiny little problems with the concept as written in both the Senate energy bill and Inslee bill in the House. Kind of like there were teeny-tiny little problems with unregulated derivatives trading, or lack of federal oversight and regulation, or corporate greed, that brought our economy to its knees last October.
It is not at all far-fetched—indeed, it’s completely foreseeable—that, as the Clean Energy Bank legislation is currently written, we could see trillion dollar or more taxpayer bailouts of “clean energy” technologies within the next decade. You didn’t like TARP? Wait until taxpayers have to bail out the likes of Duke Power, UniStar Nuclear, Southern Company and even your local mom and pop solar and wind concerns at levels that would make even Citigroup or General Motors blush—except that there are a lot more “clean energy” companies and projects out there than there are national banks or car manufacturers.
I could be wrong, of course, but it’s my personal wild guess that taxpayers are getting a little tired of bailing out corporate America. And, if you follow my personal wild guess reasoning, the idea that taxpayers might be forced to bail out a trillion dollars, or even a few hundred billion, in “clean energy” failures would probably destroy any hopes of building a genuinely sustainable energy economy or effectively dealing with the climate crisis; not to mention, coming on the heels of what we are still going through as an economy, raising the specter of permanent recession. And, of course, any presidential administration that oversees such an eventuality is not likely to be around to cope with the next such eventuality. These are high stakes, folks, and all from the innocuous, even virtuous-sounding, Clean Energy Bank.
THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS
A thousand mea culpas. This should have been posted and distributed a few weeks ago, before the Senate Energy Committee even started considering Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) proposal to add a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to his energy bill. But we missed it, and so did everyone else, except, perhaps, the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Let’s face it: it’s pretty tough for environmentalists to oppose something called a Clean Energy Bank, or even a Clean Energy Development Administration, which is starting to sound a little more bureaucratic. Maybe we just wanted to believe.
But here’s the reality: Sen. Bingaman’s Clean Energy Bank bill would provide more concrete government backing for dirty energy technologies than anything any lobbyist for the nuclear power or coal industries could have dreamed of even a year ago. And here’s the rub: even if the Bank funded only renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, it would still be an economy-wrecker. It is simply unacceptable on any grounds.
And here is why: ‘‘(3) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—Section 14 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (215 U.S.C. 661c(b)) shall not apply to a loan or loan guarantee under this section.’’.
What this seeming gobbledygook actually means is that there is no limit—none whatsoever—to the amount of money that can be directed to “clean energy” technologies by this proposed bank. $10 billion? No problem. $100 Billion? No problem? $1 Trillion? NO PROBLEM!
This was confirmed in discussions yesterday between Senate Energy Committee staff and experts from Union of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council. (We have to wonder if Rep. Inslee—a strong clean energy advocate and not exactly a good friend of the nuclear industry—might have missed the implications too; perhaps he hasn’t fully realized that his bank legislation, which was modeled after Bingaman’s, would set up an unlimited slush fund for the nuclear power industry)
The Bingaman Clean Energy Bank bill, as well as Inslee’s bill (which is nearly identical, with one minor improvement), would authorize this new entity—the Clean Energy Development Administration, which would have an administrator and a nine-member Board of Directors, and virtually no other oversight—to issue as much money in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees as it feels like for any projects that might fall under an exceedingly broad “clean energy” definition..
Let’s take a look at what might be funded under this definition: New nuclear reactors, for one, as many as the industry might consider building, at whatever cost the industry thinks necessary. That alone has the entire environmental community up in arms, since no matter what industry propaganda may say, the environmental movement remains adamant that nuclear power is an unacceptable source of electricity. It’s dirty—even without a catastrophic meltdown, it releases radiation into the air and water at every step of the nuclear fuel chain; it’s dangerous, because there is always the risk of catastrophic meltdown even with new reactors; it creates lethal long-lived radioactive waste we don’t have the slightest idea how to handle for millennia of millennia, it undercuts non-proliferation efforts abroad, and, even if none of the above were the case, it is the most costly method of producing electricity available and using it would divert resources from the cleaner, safer, cheaper, and faster means of addressing the climate crisis we need to implement.
“Clean coal” could also be funded under this definition, including such environmentally dubious (ok, I mean destructive) concepts as coal-to-liquids (a two-in-one pollution punch), as well as unproven carbon sequestration technologies.
But even if this Bank were only oriented toward renewable energy and energy efficiency, we would still have to oppose it. With all respect and love toward our compadres designing and building new solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal and other 21st century technologies, even they don’t deserve unlimited taxpayer backing for their projects.
The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office both have already projected a 50% or greater failure rate for loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. And there is no denying that the failure rate for renewable energy projects is going to be above 0, possibly above 20%. While it’s fine for taxpayers to take some risk for new energy technologies, it’s not fine to bet hundreds of billions of our dollars on new energy projects or take risks of 50% or more, especially on such capital intensive projects as new nuclear reactors, which are now projected to cost some $10 billion or more each.
And, for the skeptics out there, let’s face facts: the nuclear power industry is the one most in need of this money. Why? Because there is no private capital available to support construction of new nuclear reactors. It’s that simple—private investors simply won’t take that risk. Jeez, if Bank of America or Citigroup have been thinking for the past few years that nuclear reactors are too risky, but subprime mortgages aren’t, then I have to think a 50% projected failure rate might be too low. Admittedly, these are somewhat hard times for new renewable energy facilities as well, but until last October, money was flowing freely to them, and as the recovery begins, private investment will begin flowing to them again. But private money won’t flow to nuclear power under any circumstances without the taxpayers taking the risk.
The reality is that the nuclear industry has already asked for $122 Billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees (most of which would actually be taxpayer-funded as well, through the Federal Financing Bank). And that would cover only about 20 reactors. Getting to the GOP’s dream of 100 new reactors by mid-century (outlined by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, in the GOP Saturday radio address a couple weeks ago), would cost at least five times that amount—and that’s before the cost overruns start rolling in. For comparison, a Department of Energy study of 75 existing reactors found an average cost overrun of 207%. If that level holds true for a new generation of reactors, we’d be looking at trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Yes, I believe in supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency with taxpayer dollars—but limited taxpayer dollars. The potential for unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for any technology offers the potential for economy-killing failure, for misdirection of money, for rampant corruption.
Have our Congressmembers learned nothing from the debacle of the banking, mortgage and various other crises? Apparently not.
But hopefully the public has, and together we can stop this nonsense.
Please join us in opposing the absolutely unconscionable Clean Energy Bank proposals now before the Senate and House. Contact nirsnet@nirs.org to get on our e-mail list to be able to take effective action; you can also sign up at www.nirs.org. We’ll keep you up-to-date and give you action ideas and opportunities. Or contact the local or national environmental group you’re already a member of—we’re all in this together. But act fast, these bills are moving quickly, even though no one, including Hill staffers, seems to understand exactly what they do.
Note: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) has offered a different Clean Energy Bank bill, but it explicitly includes nuclear power and “clean” coal as “clean” energy technologies, and thus, while it doesn’t provide for unlimited loan guarantees, is also unacceptable. But you might want to contact Van Hollen and tell him that if he’ll amend his bill to include only genuinely clean energy technologies, it might be a good alternative to the unacceptable bills making their way through Congress now.
April 26, 2009
March 23, 2009
A bill that has passed the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee would gut laws designed to protect Florida wetlands from development. Its title should be "Wetlands Destruction Bill." The bill passed the committee 13-4 with one member absent. Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee voted for it. Read more about the bill here and here and below.
Your voice is needed to protest this outrageous bill! Please, email the House Speaker, the members of the Ag & Natural Resources committee, Governor Crist, and your representatives in the legislature. Their email addresses are below. Tell them that this bill moves us in exactly the wrong direction, that you support growth management and protection of Florida's natural resources, and that you expect them to act in a responsible manner to encourage sustainable economic development in our state. Remind them that wetlands are important not only for wildlife and for their aesthetic and intrinsic beauty, but as a recharge area for potable water supplies. Development interests are using the slow economy as an excuse to push for bad legislation that they claim is needed to spur the economy. This is subterfuge; the development industry is in a slump because developers have created excess capacity, not because they are subject to excess regulation.
Members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee who voted FOR this awful piece of legislation:
Here's who said NO to wetlands destruction Bill HB 1349. Write and tell them THANK YOU!!!:
More email addresses
(you can also find them at http://pinellas.fnpschapters.org/advocacy.html/
Excerpt from a St Petersburg Times article in Friday's paper:
A bill that would drastically limit the state's ability to stop wetlands from destruction has passed a legislative committee.
The bill, HB 1349, says that anyone who wants to destroy a wetland simply needs to turn in an application that's been "prepared and signed by...scientists, engineers, geologists, architects or other licensed professionals."
As long as the application is filled out properly and signed by a licensed professional, who certifies the wetland destruction won't lead to water pollution problems, it "shall be presumed to comply" with the law and must be approved. The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill Thursday.
If state regulators decide to deny the permit anyway, the bill says, then the developer can challenge it in court — and the burden of proof will be on regulators to show why the wetland was worth saving.
If someone who lives next door to the proposed development wants to challenge the permit, the bill says, the burden of proof is on the challenger, not on the developer who wants to pave over the wetland.
"It's a license to kill," said Roy "Robin" Lewis of Tampa, an environmental consultant for more than 30 years. "This bill has nothing to do with proper management of wetlands in Florida." He also pointed out that engineers, geologists and architects are not wetland experts.
Current state and federal laws say protecting wetlands is presumed to be in the public interest. Scientists have found that wetlands stem flooding, recharge the underground drinking water supply, filter pollution and provide vital habitat to wildlife.
Yet, despite policies that says there should be no net loss of wetlands, a St. Petersburg Times analysis of satellite imagery found that between 1990 and 2003 Florida lost 84,000 acres of wetlands that were converted to homes, stores, roads, parking lots and other urban uses. Add in mining and agriculture, and the total amount is likely to be nearer 100,000 acres.
Current state law requires regulators to make a decision on wetlands destruction permits within 90 days, and if they miss the deadline, the permit is automatically approved. A Times analysis of DEP permits found that they were being approved in an average of 44 days.
February 1, 2009
There is a grassroots tax-payer revolt going on concerning the electricity rate hikes coming down the pike due to our state's early recovery law which allows energy utilities to charge you in advance for plants that may never get built. Progress Energy has raised rates 11% to pay for nuclear reactors in Levy County; nuclear reactors that may never be built and which would likely incur major cost overruns as is usual with nuclear power. There's lots of information on this site as to why nukes are bad. This effort to repeal the early cost recovery laws, if successful, has the power to STOP nuclear power in its tracks. Wall Street won't invest- it's too risky, so the utilities are forced to get the money from you. Without this subsidy, it will be much more difficult for them to come up with the capital.
Please print THIS PETITION out, get your friends, family & neighbors to sign it and mail it back to the address at the bottom. Or you can sign online at the Petition Site and forward widely. Thank you.
The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) has decided to leave the nuclear decision up the Legislature, which will act on its recommendation in the spring. It is crucial that you contact your legislator to tell her/him why nuclear power is a dangerous, expensive and all-around BAD choice.
The Ecology Party of Florida, has filed as a Co-Intervener with the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Petition to Intervene, attempting to halt approval and construction of two nuclear reactors in rural Levy County, on the west coast of Florida. NIRS and the Ecology Party are challenging the basis on which the Levy nuclear reactors could be licensed, thereby opposing the production of any more deadly radioactive waste, for which there is no solution or destination. Florida residents should not be further burdened.
The Ecology Party of Florida is unwavering in its advocacy of the precautionary principle and nuclear power is proven unsafe. We believe energy conservation as well as other alternative energy options would preclude building these dangerous new reactors.
NIRS is an information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about the safety, health and environmental risks posed by nuclear power generation. NIRS has worked for 30 years to promote a healthy and just world and has been an advocate for safe and sustainable energy.
As Spokesperson Mary Olson explains, “There are many green energy alternatives to nuclear power. Solar and wind energy are available now, and ultimately much more affordable than nuclear. Every dollar spent on these new reactors is not available for developing authentically safe, clean, renewable energy”.
An advisor of the Ecology Party, Diane Cardin-Kamleiter, of St. Petersburg, who would live uncomfortably close to the reactors, explains, “The recurring issues of nuclear power remain unresolved. Deadly nuclear waste disposal, the possibility of major accidents, terrorism and evidence of cancer clusters near nuclear reactors are still not taken seriously by the energy companies. Apparently they live under the fantasy of “hoping for the best."
We , here in Florida , have a connection to Solar Energy, rather than other renewable energy resources, such as wood burning, geothermal , and wind power - As Florida receives 85 % of the maximum solar resource available, making it ideal for using solar energy .
A quick explanation of the uses of Solar: E.I.A. dot gov - Solar power applications
Traditional Solar applications are being tremendously enhanced by new advancements in Solar Technology.
Professor David Faiman, of Israel, has come up with a new , tiny solar panel that holds unprecedented amounts of heat, and transforms it into electricity.
This new technology is already in use in the Mojave Desert - where California is slated to build 3 new Solar power plants; where, under a new California law, Pacific Gas and electric is required to obtain 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2010.
Story
So, Solar has a bright future
Some links
The Solar Energy Store
Florida Solar Energy Center
If you would like to know more about the Ecology Party, or join us, please contact the State Executive Committee at the address and phone number below.
Ecology Party of Florida
641 SW 6th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
chair at ecologyparty dot org
888 462-2468
Banner and links based on a design by Antbag, used with permission
