<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Senate 2007 Energy Bill Contains Sneak Nuke Subsidies<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/our_nuclear_future.html">http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/our_nuclear_future.html</a><br>
<h3 class="entry-header">Our unnecessary nuclear future</h3>
<div class="entry-body">
<p>by Amanda Witherell</p>
<p><img alt="diablo canyon.jpg"
src="cid:part1.05050106.06060605@aim.com" height="237" width="349"></p>
<p><em>photo of Diablo Canyon nuke plants courtesy of PG&E's Jim
Zimmerlin</em></p>
<p>Sigh. Just when you're starting to think something productive might
occur in the legislature, enter the monkey wrench. A <a
href="http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/index.html" target="blank_">recently
released study</a>
outlines exactly how we could be planning for an energy future free of
nuclear and coal. If only our leaders would quit pandering to industry
and adopt such a plan, but instead it looks like the nuclear industry
has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th"
target="blank_">quietly tucked a provision</a> into the new energy
bill that would provide billions of dollars of loan guarantees for new
nuclear power plants. </p>
</div>
<div id="more" class="entry-more">
<p>The
nuclear power industry has long argued that new plants aren't feasible
unless these subsidies are granted. They scored them in the 2005 energy
bill and despite the overwhelming evidence that more renewable energy
sources are needed, looks like the 2007 bill will allocate even more
coin toward new nuclear power plants. A lot of bitching has always
accompanied the tax credits and subsidies granted to renewable power
sources like solar and wind, with a lot of scorn that these industries
are too expensive to stand on their own and therefore can’t serve our
energy needs. But nuclear obviously can't either and has a <a
href="http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/%E2%80%9D" http:=""
www.greenpeace.org="" international="" press="" reports=""
the-economics-of-nuclear-power”="" target="”blank_“">proven
track
record of cost overruns.</a></p>
<p>And a <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3718&catid=4"
target="blank_">dangerous new nuclear era is dawning,</a> with <a
href="http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/" target="blank_">advocates</a>
claiming nuclear power plants are "emissions-free" and will <a
href="http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/%E2%80%9D" http:=""
www.latimes.com="" news="" opinion=""
la-op-warmingworld-new,0,736207.storygallery?coll="la-opinion-bottomleft”"
target="”blank_”">save us from global warming.</a> To paraphrase one
of my trusted sources, "That's like saying you don't fart and ignoring
the giant crap you're leaving behind."</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>