Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

40 Comments

  1. Do you think kw one of new nuclear capacity is going to be built because of this? After this guts the remainder of our industrial base we’ll be too broke to build new nukes.

    1. @Mike H

      Getting rid of old plants that cannot meet modern standards will not “gut” the remainder of our industrial base. Most of them would have been replaced years ago if they had not been grandfathered and provided free dumping services.

  2. Till they outright come out and say we’re going to DO & Save nuclear, it’s all just soft promises in a nibbled ear to me!

  3. This will not “gut” the industrial base. If done right, It will boost it tremendously by causing massive new build of clean capacity. Most probably nuclear.

    The cost impact to consumers can be minimized by using a: “Lower Carbon Reward” System.

    In this way, only qualified (non previously subsidized, like RE) sources need be “rewarded”. With maybe new build as a priority.

    Whatever the rate per ton CO2 ends up being, and by virtue of the CO2 quanties they would emit: Coal would pay 1, Gas 1/2, CCGas about 1/3, of the total collected amount of “penalty”.

    This collection would then be used to pay the “reward” for any tech which could generate electricity emitting 10% or less CO2 than from burning coal.

    Although a value per ton CO2 would be set, it would in effect not be reached initially because the total collection can not exceed that needed for “reward”.

    In this way, the cost impact to consumers would be gradual and minimized.

    Also, new build made possible by this, would eventually fill in the slack. By that time, their positive impacts on the economy would be felt.

    1. But in our society, the most likely result is an attempt to replace coal with wind and solar, which will gut the industrial base. Actually, I’d be willing to quibble about magnitude, but the net effect will be a serious deleterious effect on industry if the USA tries to replace coal with useless, expensive wind and solar.

  4. A minimum floor collection may be set if no one qualifies initially to receive a “reward”, or if the “reward” totals are too small.

    That way, funds can be accumulated from the getgo.

  5. “Avoided Carbon Reward” seems/sounds better than; “Less Carbon Reward”.

    I picked up “avoided” from the EPA document.

  6. Getting a bit closer to the actual topic –

    They specifically asked for comment on whether the under-construction units should be included in their respective states’ goals.

    My answer is YES. The reason is to give the builders of the new units leverage against blocking or delaying (‘intervenors’) actions that have led to construction abandonment in the past.

    I realize that “reserving” the under-construction units in an unaccounted-for category would yield huge bonuses for the involved states in meeting their state CO2 reduction goals when they start operation. However, I think it is better to count them in the goals to incentivize their completion.

    1. Ruth Sponsler wrote on Power Plant Incentive:

      “However, I think it is better to count them in the goals to incentivize their completion.”

      Should they also be penalized if they are just planning the power plants with no actual progress, financing, actual construction, etc? If they are allowed to say they are going to build say a new AP1000 and have no real intent to do so, this would be a lie. They would not deserve the huge bonuses, this would be stealing.

  7. I actually can’t understand what #1 says, so it’s hard to comment. Is it discussing how the baseline is established when this becomes law? Whether plants under construction are included in the baseline or not? If so, hard to get excited about this. The breakers will be closed and making power (except for Watts Bar, a make-work project) before this is law, so a moot point.

    How does it affect the realities of today’s plant ownership? PVNPP, largest in US, is physically in AZ, but more than 50% is owned by TX and CA?

    Exelon will eventually own everything, but will continue to threaten to shut all down (because they have the inside track on this permanently pending law, which is supposedly implemented by each state).

    1. @mjd

      The breakers will be closed and making power (except for Watts Bar, a make-work project) before this is law, so a moot point.

      I’m not sure I understand this comment. Watt’s Bar is the first of the five new plants that should be started. I think it is currently scheduled for next year or early 2016 – for whatever a TVA schedule is worth these days.

      Vogle 3 & 4 and Summer 2 & 3 won’t start until 2017 at the earliest and the last one of the four will probably start sometime in 2020 or 2021.

      1. My point is I don’t think this proposal has a chance of becoming law before an administration change in DC, if ever. Guess I’m not confident in DC’s ability to get anything done, period. WB-2 comment is agreeing with your TVA schedule comment. If I plot the progress curve since the start of WB-2 it doesn’t look promising, and TVA is now “under new management”, consistency has not been a TVA strong point. Doesn’t TVA have the honor of most cancelled nukes back to the ’70s?

        1. @mjd

          I may be mistaken, but there is no need for the EPA’s proposal to “become law.” A court recently upheld the EPA’s contention that the Clean Air Act of 1970 provides sufficient authority to regulate CO2. The document is a draft regulation, not a proposed piece of legislation.

          1. OK, thanks for that clarification. The timing still seems weird (cap-and-trade died in 2010), as even with a Reg the comment/rewrite/re-post period takes years. Maybe the logic is as simple as a first step was needed. You know how this stuff goes… nobody will propose an initial idea on paper, but when one hits the street suddenly everyone has an opinion, so a dialog starts. That is good.

          2. The timing still seems weird (cap-and-trade died in 2010)

            @mjd

            How so … there is Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) with nine States participating and one other as observer. California also has cap and trade program.

            The law mandating enforcement actions and rulemaking has already been passed. What is up for debate is flexibility of rules, timing, provisions, etc.

  8. I have to admit, the document is hard for me to follow, so apologies if I’m missing the point. It reads like the EPA wants to take into account CO2 reductions from the NPP builds prior to establishing a baseline for CO2 reductions. Which seems like cheating, to me, since this assumes the plants will be finished, assumes a certain amount of kW*hr & thereby CO2 reductions, and assumes a capacity factor. Now, as an engineer, I like these projects’ chances of meeting or beating their targets, but as an armchair legislator I would never write these assumptions and targets into law.

    If the NPPs’ CO2 reductions are assumed into the CO2 baseline, and the project(s) are stopped, then the state(s) will be in a bind. If the project(s) are not stopped and are successful, then the state(s) will still be pressed to hit the CO2 goals, it will be as if they did nothing (penalizing success).

    If the NPPs’ CO2 reductions are *not* assumed into the CO2 baseline, and the project(s) are stopped, the actions needed to hit the CO2 reduction goals will less drastic and may act as an incentive to finish the NPP build(s). If the project(s) are not stopped and are successful, it will make it easier to hit their CO2 reductions and to consider more NPP projects in order to meet the CO2 reductions.

    And doesn’t all this assume a static amount of electrical requirements? What if electrical demand increases significantly after the CO2 baseline is set?

    1. Yes, it sounds as though the three states with active nuclear construction are going to get no credit at all for their risk-taking. EPA will assume the plants would have been built anyway, despite their parenthetical admission that future carbon restrictions may have played a part in the decision to construct them. So with that out of the way, EPA can twist the screws even tighter on other emissions sources in those states.

      That’s how the biggest, most expensive, and most financially challenging carbon-reducing construction projects in the country can be swept aside as essentially irrelevant for their part in meeting EPA’s carbon reduction plan.

  9. Overall….my limited understanding of the politics behind NE tells me this EPA proposal is positive to your cause. It will be interesting to see what happens to this proposal under a Republican administration. I wonder. The answer may embarrass one or two contributors here.

  10. Rod, first of all let me say I am totally in favor of this (some) needed action, EPA or not. And it is off-thread directly (thread asks for comments on the proposal), but in actual application to get something actually done about the issue, reality sets in. I don’t get the strategy behind the timing of the announcement. That’s what I’m really puzzled about. I totally agree with the discussion here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/06/dont-believe-doom-mongering-about-obamas-new-carbon-regs

    I don’t get the “chess game” that is apparently going on. So it is hard for me to seriously consider commenting on this proposal, when it may be just a ploy to get a different proposal. I think most of us here would agree this is a problem that needs a solution. It’s just very strange the way we go about things these days.

    1. After the NPR story this morning which was all about how wonderful cap and trade is/will be, I wonder if this isn’t the first maneuver in an effort by big money to create a new speculative market, with no real concern for actually reducing CO2 emisisons.

  11. Southern Republicans (Governors, Senators, House Reps) may not like these provisions on compliance costs for nuclear plants in Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina. They likely have an interest in opposing these rules, and thus highlighting how costs for compliance are going to be very high (and not small). The higher the better from their perspective, and I would expect them to be active in lobbying against these provisions (and possibly to the detriment of nuclear in their own state and any new spending on carbon reduction goals and the future benefits of cost-effective nuclear in meeting them).

    If I were advocating for nuclear, and located in these southern states, I’d be writing to my representative recommending active support for these provisions.

      1. This one:

        “the incremental cost associated with the CO2 emission reductions available from completion of these units as zero for purposes of setting states’ CO2 reduction goals”

        In other words, representatives in these states (or nuclear industry as a whole) will be able to say we have met these compliance goals at a very low incremental cost, and we have done so with nuclear. This is good for industry. If these incremental costs were added to compliance options, it might appear that nuclear has contributed to the most expensive of incremental costs in these States (an argument that coal industry, chamber of commerce, etc., will use and suggest consumers are getting hit very hard by carbon mitigation options mandated by the government).

        1. @EL

          I’m not sure if I agree with your reasoning. Why is it that South Carolina, which already produces 53% of its electricity by emission free nuclear plants and whose consumers have agreed to help foot the bill for two more large reactors, is being asked to cut emissions more than Vermont, a state that has made it so difficult on the operator of its only nuclear plant that the operator is quitting in December and shutting down the plant?

          http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140602/PC05/140609869/1010/south-carolina-power-plans-must-cut-carbon-emissions-more-than-half-under-epa-plan

          That makes no sense at all. Vermont, which has been either the lowest emissions per capita state in the union or one of the lowest for more than 40 years, is going to take a huge step backward in December with the replacement of VY power with gas power. Of course, I suspect that Bernie Sanders and his buddies will figure out some inscrutable math that shows that the state is doing great things.

          1. Why is it that South Carolina, which already produces 53% of its electricity by emission free nuclear plants and whose consumers have agreed to help foot the bill for two more large reactors, is being asked to cut emissions more than Vermont …

            @Rod Adams

            EPA rules targets coal-powered plants as a leading source of carbon emissions, and Vermont does not have any. Per your source, coal generates around 26% of power generated in South Carolina.

            When reading articles (news stories, responses to plan, etc.) primarily intended to protect coal industry (as seems to be the case in your example), you might want to be very careful that you aren’t doing their bidding and directly disadvantaging nuclear. EPA plan for South Carolina specifically cites “expanding nuclear” as one of the strategy options for meeting carbon reduction targets in the State. If you see this as a bad thing for the State, I would encourage you to fight this rule (or alternatively to argue for weakening standard for States such as South Carolina that generate 26% of their electricity from coal).

            1. @EL

              I hope you would have figured out by now that I have no desire to artificially hamper coal while enabling natural gas.

              A state that has 50% nuclear and 50% coal would produce exactly the same emissions per kilowatt hour as one that has 100% natural gas. However, under the proposed rules, one of them would be exempt from any action and the other would be asked to reduce emissions by 50%. How is that fair or logical unless your only aim is to get rid of coal and promote natural gas?

              I favor cheap, clean, reliable, abundant, American, energy-dense power. Coal is not perfect, but it scores pretty well on several of those measures of effectiveness.

            2. @EL

              Why would you imply that the Charleston, SC Post and Courier has any inherent desire to protect the coal industry? South Carolina utilities certainly purchase coal, but the state produces little if any coal of its own. It is not a state dominated by “coal interests.” If it was, it would not have more than half of its power being generated by nuclear with two more large plants under construction.

          2. I hope you would have figured out by now that I have no desire to artificially hamper coal while enabling natural gas.

            @Rod

            The new EPA rules on power plant carbon emissions are the best thing going for nuclear. If you want to be on the wrong side of the argument, be my guest.

            Santee Cooper generates 60 percent of electricity from coal last year (down from 80 in previous years). If you don’t see an opportunity for nuclear here, I’m not sure I’m the best person to help make the case for you.

            You can check out articles in Post and Courrier tagged Warren L. Wise and Nuclear for yourself, and make up your own mind about his editorial perspective and approach.

            http://www.postandcourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=search&text=nuclear&facet.filter=&facet.filter=&facet.filter=Byline:Warren%20L.%20Wise

            He seems fairly convinced nuclear is increasing the cost of electricity for South Carolina ratepayers, and coal is getting hit hard with federal policy and regs (and resulting in job losses in S. Carolina and elsewhere, etc.).

            The RIA on carbon pollution guidelines (a more important document on projected impacts of new rule) estimates a decrease in new natural gas capacity compared to baseline: “Due largely to the demand reduction attributable to the demand-side energy savings applied in the illustrative scenarios, EPA projects less new natural gas combined cycle capacity built under the proposed rule than is built in the base case over the time horizon presented in this RIA” (p. 3-34 to 3-35).” Coal capacity will be reduced. Non-hydro renewables will see a boost, and nuclear will see benefits too (particularly for States, such as South Carolina, who can opt to meet new emissions guidelines with an expansion of nuclear capacity).

            I think it’s unlikely that we’re going to have too many credible arguments from nuclear advocates about how this rule is going to hurt nuclear, but I suppose anything is possible. Perhaps you can be the first. We’re going to see lots of politically motivated types of arguments and attacks (but these are not always grounded on a reasonable or objective basis). We’ll see how it turns out. It looks like a done deal to me (although I anticipate a lot of changes, and a much weaker set of proposals in a year, when these rules are close to being finalized).

            1. @EL

              The RIA on carbon pollution guidelines (a more important document on projected impacts of new rule) estimates a decrease in new natural gas capacity compared to baseline: “Due largely to the demand reduction attributable to the demand-side energy savings applied in the illustrative scenarios, EPA projects less new natural gas combined cycle capacity built under the proposed rule than is built in the base case over the time horizon presented in this RIA”

              Once again, you display your tendency to confuse “capacity” with production.

              There is already plenty of existing natural gas electricity generating capacity to enable a rather large increase in natural gas consumption and in electricity production by burning natural gas. If I’m not mistaken, natural gas power plants operate at an average capacity factor of well below 50%.

              When the EIA’s projections about “demand response” are wrong, the permanent reduction in coal plant capacity will result in an increase in sales for the natural gas industry and an increase in natural gas prices due to the shifting in supply-demand balance toward demand. When the price gets high enough, demand destruction (not demand management) will result in a slowdown in the economy and an eventual drop in prices to allow the cycle to start all over again.

              When prices are high and before consumers can adjust their lifestyles or production plans to reduce demand, the multinational petroleum companies, their managers and their investors will be capturing an unjustified excess share of the global economy. Some nuclear plant operators in merchant markets will also profit, but mainly because they have been carefully restricting generating capacity by discouraging new nuclear plant development.

              The rest of the economy will suffer.

              I make these statements based on having watched this cycle happen twice already. It happened in the 1980s into the first quarter of the 1990s and then again in the second half of the 1990s into 2008. It behoves people who care about energy, care about American prosperity, and hate oil company leaders to recognize this pattern and work hard to avoid its repetition.

              You also wrote:

              I think it’s unlikely that we’re going to have too many credible arguments from nuclear advocates about how this rule is going to hurt nuclear, but I suppose anything is possible. Perhaps you can be the first.

              As I said before, I like cheap, clean, abundant, reliable, American, energy-dense fuel sources. Though nuclear scores well on all of those measures, coal does pretty well on most of them. Natural gas — under current ownership structures — fails on almost all of them.

          3. Once again, you display your tendency to confuse “capacity” with production.

            @Rod Adams

            Huh … I haven’t confused this (and I haven’t elsewhere either)? Document specifically talks about new “capacity” additions for combined cycle as consequence of new emissions guidelines (and they are lower in analysis when compared to baseline), which is exactly what I stated (Sec 3.7.6). In 2030, production from “existing combined cycles increases 18% to 19% relative to base case,” and “generation from newly built combined cycle decreases between 36% and 40% relative to base case, consistent with the decrease in new capacity” (p. 3.26). Production from combined cycle is expected to be around 32% of the generation mix 2030 (baseline is 31%). The main impact of rules is retirement of older units and reduction in generation from Coal and Oil/Gas Steam.

            Not sure what you think is incorrect about these statements. Could you please be more specific?

            1. @EL

              The point is that natural gas company sales volume to the electric power industry, as measured in TCF per year, will increase. It doesn’t matter to me — or to natural gas marketers — how much electrical generating “capacity” can burn natural gas. What matters to both of us is how much natural gas they sell and how much money they make.

              Closing coal plants is inevitably beneficial for their bottom line so political contributions that result in actions aimed at disadvantaging coal are investments with good ROI. So are donations to organizations like the Sierra Club that run “environmental” campaigns like “Beyond Coal.”

              Actions that benefit multinational petroleum companies are often NOT in the best interest of average American citizens. Those are the people I care about most.

          4. The point is that natural gas company sales volume to the electric power industry, as measured in TCF per year, will increase.

            @Rod Adams

            No it won’t (for time horizon considered in RIA). The information you are looking for is Table 3-11 (pg 3-27).

            By your criteria, you should be supporting these rules. Baseline generation from existing and new combined cycle gas plants is 1409 thousand GWh in 2030, and with new rules generation is 1314 – 1345 thousand GWh, which is a reduction of some 5.5%. Share of combined cycle in generation mix is greater in 2030 because of efficiency and conservation gains.

            Are you on board yet … or are you still making a case for the baseline scenario with lots of coal, higher production from natural gas, and more early retirements from nuclear (and a competitive environment for nuclear that does not favor new construction).

            I’m really scratching my head on this one Rod … are you really an opponent of these rules, which most people see as a benefit to nuclear, and would be a significant boost to fossil fuels if they went away. Your logic escapes me. Your patriotism for coal (American and affordable if you exclude Appalachian coal or favor mountain top removal) appears to be running in direct conflict with your advocacy for nuclear. I already knew nuclear advocates didn’t have much use for current market trends, and failing to see the benefit of carbon costs is another good example.

            1. @EL

              By your criteria, you should be supporting these rules. Baseline generation from existing and new combined cycle gas plants is 1409 thousand GWh in 2030, and with new rules generation is 1314 – 1345 thousand GWh, which is a reduction of some 5.5%. Share of combined cycle in generation mix is greater in 2030 because of efficiency and conservation gains.

              I do not believe the assumptions about the impact of efficiency and conservation. When those imaginary sources of “negawatts” do not appear, the solution will be to burn more gas to produce more megawatts since the coal plants will have been shut down for good.

              The EIA is notoriously incapable of producing accurate projections for the future. That is largely because they use a politically constrained methodology in their models. Reality does not bend itself to popularity.

            2. @EL

              Are you on board yet … or are you still making a case for the baseline scenario with lots of coal, higher production from natural gas, and more early retirements from nuclear (and a competitive environment for nuclear that does not favor new construction).

              Please recall how many times I have written about my dislike of typical “either, or,” “left, right,” and “advocate versus opponent” journalism. There are other scenarios available, including one that enables companies like NuScale, TerraPower, StarCore, Terrestrial Energy, Flibe, TransAtomic Power, X-Energy, Gen IV and other innovative new companies that have not yet been formed to competitively drive down the cost of emission-free, reliable, abundant nuclear energy to a level below the cost of fossil fuel competitors.

              PS – If I was not so old already, I would have added Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. to the list of innovative companies with more than just an idea of how to drive down the initial capital cost of nuclear energy facilities.

  12. On a related if not directly applicable note, the US Council of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement in favor of the new EPA ruling. I sent the following letter to the nun who heads the social justice arm of the USCCB, as well as my Diocesan Bishop of Charlotte, NC and the Diocesan Bishop of Raleigh, NC. I will follow up with a separate letter to one of the local area priests who is a traditional orthodox Latinist (hooray) taking issues very seriously. He is on teaching assignment in Rome right now, so he won’t act on this, but he does communicate regularly with Bishop Jugis and he is bound to read my letter since I am perhaps the only one who will write to him in Latin ;-). Given that there are 78.2 million Catholics in the United States, this is worth a try.

    PS, I hope I got my facts straight. I am sure someone here smarter than me will point out my errors. 🙁

    Dear Sister Walsh, Your Excellency Bishop Jugis and Your Excellency Bishop Burbidge,

    It is gratifying to see the subject of toxic air pollution from fossil fuel electrical power generation being addressed by the US Council of Catholic Bishops:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-094.cfm

    I have worked in naval submarine nuclear propulsion and commercial nuclear power for 38 years. I have been variously a submarine reactor operator, a nuclear systems training instructor, a nuclear instrumentation and controls engineer, and a nuclear QA engineer. I can therefore state unequivocally that the solution to the difficulty of providing stable, high capacity factor electrical power to our industrial civilization without pollution is safe, clean nuclear energy. Even including Three Mile Island (which neither injured nor killed any member of the public), Chernobyl (whose RBMK design cannot be licensed in the West and whose accident due to the laws of physics are impossible at a Western light water reactor), and Fukushima (which killed less than a dozen people outright, and none from radiation), nuclear energy is safer than any other form of electrical generation, even including solar and wind:

    http://theenergycollective.com/ansorg/236461/environmental-impact-evaluations-seeing-bigger-nuclear-vs-fossil-picture

    http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

    The following table provides the relevant statistics on death rate normalized per terawatt hour and gigawatt year for various forms of electrical generation. Notice that nuclear is least fatal:

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

    I have worked on some of the newer nuclear reactor designs, including General Electric – Hitachi’s Economically Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. Please view the video at the following web link to see what I mean about this reactor design’s inherent safety:

    http://www.ge-energy.com/products_and_services/products/nuclear_energy/esbwr_nuclear_reactor.jsp

    I have taught training courses on other designs, including CANDU heavy water reactors and Westinghouse pressurized light water reactors. The newer designs employ passive safety features that obviate the need for either operator action or electrical power backup in the event of an accident or transient. The type of events that occurred at TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima are simply not credible with these new designs.

    Additionally, unbeknownst to the majority of the public, natural gas fracking gives off more radioactivity from underground radon, and coal fired power plant pollution gives off more radioactivity from the naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium in coal than any nuclear power plant is allowed to release under US NRC regulations.

    Lastly, the capacity factor of so-called renewables such as solar and wind is less than 30% whereas the capacity factor of nuclear is greater than 92%. The use of solar and wind always requires fossil fuel spinning reserve backup, and always despoils hundred of square miles of land area for a miniscule amount of power dwarfed by any nuclear power plant occupying a small faction of such land area. Indeed, every solar or wind farm is a natural gas polluter. The idea that natural gas is clean given its carbon emissions and the radioactivity released from fracking to obtain it, is frankly ludicrous. Only nuclear energy is clean, safe and cheap.

    Therefore, perhaps the US Council of Catholic Bishops could be persuaded to support safe, clean nuclear energy given its well-founded opposition to fossil fuel pollution.

    One other thing: used nuclear fuel from US light water and CANDU heavy water reactors cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. The fissile plutonium-239 in the fuel is too contaminated with non-fissile plutonium-240. Indeed, when North Korea tried to use a reactor (albeit an RBMK design) to make its bomb, the bomb fizzled out – it was not a militarily useful weapon. Furthermore, the best way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons is to consume weapons grade uranium-235 and plutonium-239 in nuclear reactors, making electrical energy peacefully and safely. We have a program to do that. It is called megatons to megawatts:

    http://www.usec.com/russian-contracts/megatons-megawatts

    Vobis gratias ago pro vestra patientia in legente meam epistulam.

    Tuus Servus in Caritate Christi,

    Paul Primavera

    1. Wow! I never even thought of writing to churches about nuclear power. That seems kind of original, but also kind of sensible. Nuclear power saves lives and makes one a good steward of the earth. It seems like all the churches would go for that one.

      1. Well….I don’t know. If you really wanna reach out to a powerful “religious” lobby organization that has Congress by the gonads, I’d be writing to AIPAC.

        You get AIPAC on NE’s side, and every member of Congress will be breaking out thier kneepads to legislate for a nuke plant on every street corner and cul-de-sac layin’ west of the Atlantic.

        1. I am a Catholic Christian. As such I have to obey my local Ordinary – the Bishop of Charlotte. I also have the right and the duty to respond when I think there is an issue of sufficient moral gravity. Avoidable mortality from the use of fossil fuel constitutes such an issue. I will follow up with a letter to the Vatican. I have to first figure out to which office in the Curia Romana it should be addressed:

          Academia Pontificalis Scientiarum
          Concilium Pontificalis pro Iustitia et Pace
          Adiutor Civitatis

          Or maybe I should write directly to Pontifex Maximus, Papa Franciscus himself. He is known for making personal telephone calls. 😉

          I cannot influence politicians, and with respect to the comment above, religious lobby organizations do NOT have Congress by the short hairs, although secular organizations with their main steam media anti-nuclear cheer leaders (both antipathetic and antagonistic to Judeo-Christian religion and objective morality) certainly seem to fall into that category. But I can communicate with my religious superiors in the USCCB about the topic of nuclear energy since those superiors have seen fit to comment on the new EPA pollution rules which can only be met by means of the use of nuclear energy to displace polluting fossil energy.

        2. Post Scriptum:

          My intent is to get the USCCB to explain to the Faithful this whole area of mortality from pollution and what can be done to obviate it. The USCCB routinely issues statements and programs and policies on a wide range of social justice issues: immigration reform, respect for life, sanctity of marriage, fair employment, just war, capital punishment, etc. It has seen fit to issue a statement on the recent EPA ruling without understanding what it would take to meet the intent of the ruling – full scale use of nuclear energy. And too many clerics out of ignorance associate the peaceful use of nuclear energy with weapons proliferation, or meltdowns, or radioactive hazards from use fuel, or whatever. So in whatever small way I can, I am trying to educate clerics who, while they may know theology and morality, have little understanding of science or engineering. They need to know the latter so that when they issue statements about the moral use of the latter, those statements are correct, consistent and effective.

          I am not interested any longer in influencing politicians either right or left. Rather, influencing 78.2 million Catholics in the US would seem to be a better way.

  13. @ EL June 4, 2014 at 10:17 AM
    The timing still seems weird (cap-and-trade died in 2010)
    @mjd
    How so …

    That question is already answered @ mjd June 3, 2014 at 10:48 AM
    a quote from the reference:
    “Back in 2010, when cap-and-trade was being considered in the Senate, Obama warned that if it didn’t pass, he’d take executive action on his own.”

    Four years ago… just seems like a long time for executive action to resolve an issue that is the responsibility of Congress, especially since the new proposal probably will not be resolved before he leaves office. He had to know all that, thus “the timing still seems weird.” Maybe it is related to the timing of the court ruling, that Rod pointed out above. Or maybe I just need to redefine my standard of weird after watching “stuff” for awhile.

Comments are closed.