Melançon Enterprises • a multidivision multinational since 1980

I have nothing against the people of the nuclear industry. In fact, I think they've done a very good job not killing many of us, certainly fewer then even natural gas drilling, and despite not building a power plant in well over 30 years, still provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity.

Dad always said that the most damning aspect of nuclear energy is that they can't get private insurance to cover a reactor. I think they all got federally guaranteed loans too, and loads of other money.

My question is why do the vaguely evil industries always have a lobby, and the more benign ones so often don't? What law of logic or nature or politics or society says that oil company executives will buy the government but geothermal investors won't?

Actually, I may have an answer now.

I think it may be in the nature of the technology. Oil processing, nuclear plants, even hydroelectric favors centralized power. Geothermal, wind, even tidal and solar (to say nothing of the most powerful 'source' of energy, conservation) decentralize and distribute power.

If you lobby the government for billions in nuclear research and construction subsidies and loans, you can be pretty sure you are one of or the only company that can take advantage of that. This is probably less true of renewable energy in general, and so even though it's clearly in the interest of security and efficiency to have a decentralized power grid, we don't see nearly as much investment in that direction.

http://coanews.org/article/2008/mccains-nuclear-power-policy-identical-t...

Some attempt to find the numbers myself...

U.S. federal spending nuclear renewable
money for nuclear versus money for renewable

Even in the highlights it looks like more ends up with nuclear than renewable-- but coal probably gets the most! Nuclear may have weapons connotations and that big scary "what do we do with the radioactive waste even if everything goes perfectly" question, and coal may be the dirtiest, but nothing can match the overall harmful impact of the oil and gas industries. Let me just say we can probably attribute two-thirds of the military budget as a subsidy to that delightful disaster of energy policy.

On to the research... noting parts of a press release with bold markup:

Department of Energy Submits $23.6 Billion Spending Plan to Congress for FY’07
March 16, 2007
http://www.doe.gov/news/4884.htm

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today submitted the Department’s $23.598 billion spending plan to Congress for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, a $45 million (0.2%) increase over the FY’07 request, as a result of the FY’07 Continuing Resolution. The spending plan will allow DOE to continue making marked progress in achieving President Bush’s goal of bringing more clean energy sources to market to help cut dependence on fossil fuels, increasing our energy and economic security and boosting competitiveness. The Continuing Resolution, signed by President Bush on February 15, required that a spending plan be submitted to Congress within 30 days of enactment.

The FY’07 spending plan emphasizes investment in alternative fuel technologies, as put forth in President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address. The ACI will increase federal investment in critical research to ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the world in scientific innovation, and provide American children with a strong foundation in math and science. The AEI seeks to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by changing the way we power our nation.

This plan also allocates resources that will contribute to President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, which builds upon the President’s AEI by seeking to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by twenty percent in ten years. This bold proposal - extraordinary because it requests Congress mandate a fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 - will help to more aggressively confront climate change and leave Americans less reliant on imported energy, particularly nations that are hostile to the United States.

Highlights

DOE’s spending plan includes $1.5 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This boost in funding shows strong support for the AEI, and expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, notably biomass and solar; vehicle technologies and; building codes and appliance standards. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Golden, Colorado, should also receive a major boost. NREL serves as DOE’s primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. Targeted increases at NREL include $20 million for its biorefinery researching ethanol; $16 million for advanced thin-film photovoltaic manufacturing equipment to reduce the cost of solar panels; and $63 million to build a research facility on the campus.

This plan also reflects the President’s $2 billion commitment to clean coal technologies. This funding supports the development and demonstration of a balanced portfolio of key technologies in strategic coal research programs aimed at near-zero emissions, including carbon emissions. Research for carbon sequestration, a 55 percent increase to $100 million - lays the foundation for expediting the start of projects involving large scale CO2 injection field tests. It supports the development and demonstration of a balanced portfolio of key technologies in strategic coal research programs aimed at near-zero emissions, including carbon emissions. A significant increase in carbon sequestration research, laying the foundation to allow for the environmental sustainability of clean coal in the future in a carbon constrained economy, while ensuring that coal remains part of the strategic domestic energy resources.

The Office of Science’s $3.8 billion allocation incorporates full funding for the President’s initiative on fusion energy, funds most user facilities at near optimum levels, and permits making awards for three bioenergy research centers, DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines.

The Office of Environmental Management will receive a $358 million increase to further DOE’s commitment to safe cleanup of our Cold War-era nuclear facilities. Over half of this funding is for the long-term stewardship of DOE sites safely closed in FY’06 including Rocky Flats, Fernald, Columbus and Ashtabula sites. This plan will further DOE’s progress in cleaning up liquid tank waste, solid waste, and special nuclear material, and in remediating soil and groundwater contamination across the DOE complex. [Enough said?]

In pursuit of making nuclear energy a more integral part of our nation’s energy mix, the Office of Nuclear Energy’s NP 2010 program is fully funded at $80.3 million, allowing the Department to accelerate the engineering scope associated with the final designs. In addition, $167.5 million will be available for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, enabling ongoing research and development, technology development, and industry engagement activities critical to inform a Secretarial decision on the GNEP path forward in June 2008.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will spend $445.7 M in FY’07 and will perform the critical path activities needed to produce a high quality License Application for submittal to the NRC no later than June 30, 2008. This includes completing certification of the License Support Network and the draft YM supplemental environmental impact statement. [The politically radioactive Yucca Mountain is abbreviated YM?!]

Under the full-year Continuing Resolution, Congress provided DOE with $7 million to fund the operation of its Loan Guarantee Office, and authority to issue guarantees for up to $4 billion in loans. [Which go to... nuclear? oil? coal?]