Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sun Aug 23 2009 - 19:51:03 EDT

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:

> Anyway, what I'm saying here is that nuclear should be getting discussed
> right now and directly. Even if you believe that market forces after an AGW
> bill is passed will naturally lead to increased pressure to start building
> nuclear plants (and frankly, we should have been starting work on these
> things years ago), that just means that a serious discussion about nuclear
> is going to be inevitable. So why not do it now? I mean, I am excited at the
> prospect of stirling engines, of alternative energy sources, of a more
> efficient solar solution, etc. But those strike me as 'maybe someday'
> solutions, and AGW proponents are insisting present action is needed.
In Subtitle I of HR 2454 are a number of direct support provisions
independent of cap and trade.

Sec. 184 Clean Energy investment Fund.
Sec. 185 Energy Technology Deployment Goals.
Sec. 186 Clean Energy Deployment Administration.
Sec. 187 Direct Support.
Sec. 188 Indirect Approach.

The definitions for "clean energy technology" as defined in Sec. 183 (4)
would include nuclear energy.


21 ‘‘clean energy technology’’ means a technology re
22 lated to the production, use, transmission, storage,
23 control, or conservation of energy—
24 (A) that will contribute to a stabilization of
25 atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations

1 thorough reduction, *avoidance*, or sequestration
2 of energy-related emissions

Nuclear energy *avoids *GHG emissions and thus qualifies as a "clean energy
technology" that receives federal help. Is my reading of the bill naive?
Nope. I didn't tell you the title of Subtitle I. It's "Nuclear and Advanced

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 23 19:51:54 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 23 2009 - 19:51:54 EDT