5 Comments

  1. Rod – While I too fully respect Dr. Chu’s scientific abilities and his skill at doing some neat science with lasers, I cannot help but notice that he is more of a politician than a scientist these days. In many ways, he is every bit a politician as the other person you mention.

    Some of the political games being played these days require more than one player. For example, it requires one politician to pull a license application (“with prejudice,” I might add, so that the decision cannot be later reversed) and a second politician to refuse to review the license application in spite of being directed to do so by Congress.

  2. On the public side, we see Dr. Chu talking about energy production, but if you look at what really occupies most of his time (and his agency’s budget) it’s maintaining the surety of our nuclear weapon stockpile. I personally think we should separate the NNSA from DOE so that we can have a cabinet level person focused solely on energy related issues.

  3. If you read the Matt Wald article in the New York Times, you will discover that there was an energy bill that was passed by the Senate in 2007, which was written by Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico, and which proposed changes to the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program.

    Nowhere, however, does Wald say that the bill offers $50 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. All that the changes do is to accelerate the rate at which the Department of Energy is allowed to award loan guarantees that have already been approved.

    If Harvey thinks that he went to D.C. to stop $50 billion in nuclear loan guarantees, then he is greatly mistaken.

    The loan guarantees were already legislated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The only change proposed by the new bill was to eliminate the political bottleneck in approving these guarantees, because as the article puts it, “under current law, the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. Last year, Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year.”

    The $50 billion figure shows up years later. There was an attempt by Senate Republicans to increase the loan guarantees already authorized in 2005 to roughly $50 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Next year, President Obama proposed increasing the loan guarantees to $54 billion in the FY 2011 budget that he submitted to Congress.

    So we see that “no nukes” crowd are not very accurate in their recounting of events. (I’m sure nobody is surprised, given their record.) In Harvey’s case, I’m willing to chalk it up to all the years of smoking pot, but since “$50 billion” appears so often, this figure appears to have taken the role of a shibboleth that is used by the tribe to rally their opposition to nuclear power.

  4. On the public side, I hear Dr. Chu talking about painting roofs white and other silly, trivial stuff.

    It’s clear that he is saying what is popular with the folks who have put him in his current office … just like any politician does.

  5. Driving thru Vermont this Labor day week end. A few things have changed alongside Interstate 91 since 1 year ago.

    3 mountain tops have been shaved off and wind mills have made an appearance.

    1 farm has installed approximately 40 solar panels.

    Who’s taking the green out of Vermont ?

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Pro nuclear movement can appear confused to left and right

    Last week Ketan Joshi (@KetanJO) published a piece titled Nuclear power’s tense contradiction. Ketan is a thoughtful science and technology writer who earned a science degree (neuroscience and psychology) from Sydney University and has worked in the renewable energy industry. He is also deeply interested in politics and identifies with the left. His article is…

  • John Tjostem – GMOs & Atomic Fission Enable a Sustainable Future

    During a discussion on Atomic Insights, I encountered a man whose recipes for a sustainable future need greater distribution. John Tjostem is an advocate of technologies that enable disruptive abundance and a more rewarding life for a growing portion of the world’s population. After growing up on South Dakota farm in the 1930s and 1940s,…

  • Bernie Sanders is listening to the wrong people about energy

    Many of my friends and colleagues in the nuclear energy community think I’m am on a quixotic mission. Though I have not made any decision on how to vote in November, Bernie Sanders is the candidate who is currently delivering messages that align with my thoughts on the direction that the US needs to move…

  • NEI Asks Trump Transition Team For Assistance To Make 2017 A Happy Nuke Year

    The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) recently issued a six page memorandum for the Trump transition team titled Nuclear Power in America and the World that outlines a program to improve America’s nuclear energy capabilities. It leads with the following paragraph. Economic, reliable, stable electricity is the lifeblood of our economy, a critical ingredient of prosperity…

  • Nader’s nuclear blind spot

    A March 12, 2014 Democracy Now! segment featuring an interview with Ralph Nader was advertised as a report about the recent US Senate climate change talkathon. Nermeen Shaikh, the show co-host, moved rapidly from a discussion about the Senate actions to draw attention to climate change to asking Nader a leading question about nuclear energy….

  • Fukushima Happened. Now What?

    In the months and years to come, post-Fukushima, people who influence power plant construction decisions will be making choices that will have a large impact on future generations. In this reflective time of the year, it is important to gather the most accurate lessons learned and to offer some food for thought about the motives…