Earth Equity News

GOP Sen. Grassley Says McCain Wants it Both Ways: Subsidies Good for Nuclear Energy, But Bad for Ethanol. By Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times (UK), October 24, 2008. "A senior Republican lawmaker [Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley] has questioned John McCain's energy proposals, including a plan to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030, given the Republican presidential nominee's resistance to government subsidies. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator, who has been a staunch supporter of federal subsidies for ethanol production and supports expansion of nuclear power, suggested in an interview with the Financial Times that the Arizona lawmaker's views on federal subsidies on energy production were inconsistent. Mr McCain has repeatedly said federal support for ethanol, the corn-based alcohol, distort the market and he has called for the elimination of mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that 'prevent the development of market-based solutions'... Mr Grassley is not alone in questioning how Mr McCain might finance a huge expansion in nuclear power. 'While [McCain] doesn't come right out and say these [new reactors] should be subsidised, it is pretty clear to most people that there is no way these reactors will be built without, in effect, socialising them via massive federal loan guarantees,' says Doug Koplow, founder of Earth Track, which researches subsidies. He estimates that if a single reactor is 80 per cent federally guaranteed at a cost of $8 billion, the federal government could end up subsidizing between $200 billion to $290 billion, making it the largest subsidy to a single privately owned industrial sector. Lester Brown... founder of the Earth Policy Institure, also believes it is unlikely new plants will sprout up given the expense. 'If we insist on full cost accounting, then anyone who wants to build a nuclear power plant has to be prepared to pay the cost of disposing of the waste, they have to find someone who will insure the reactor, and they have to include that in the utility rates the cost of decommissioning the plant,' he says. 'If we do that, nuclear power just doesn't get out of the starting blocks.'"