Today SC state senators debated S. 360 in a House Agricultural and Natural Resources Subcommittee. It was surreal.<\/p>\n
The committee met to consider the bill that defines “renewable resources” in our state energy policy. The bill references solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, renewable hydrogen and nuclear power as renewable resources.<\/p>\n
Nuclear power?<\/p>\n
Since when, in any corporate lobbyist’s wildest dreams, has nuclear power been considered a renewable resource?<\/p>\n
Nowhere. Ever.<\/p>\n
South Carolina could be the first in making this exciting discovery.<\/p>\n
The industry lobbyist was quite clear that if we don’t include clean coal and nuclear power in our future, we might as well hang out a “going out of business” sign at the state borders.<\/p>\n
The notion that nuclear power plants provide renewable energy is only slightly less ridiculous than the fact the the state Senate passed this bill last year (S-360). Being listed as a renewable resource would entitle nuclear energy providers to the tax breaks offered to honestly renewable resources.<\/p>\n
Faced with the obvious, that nuclear energy is not renewable, the committee adopted an amendment to change the context of the original bill from “renewable” to “clean” energy, thereby establishing a questionable rationale for including nuclear into the state’s energy policy.<\/p>\n
The committee unanimously passed the amended “clean energy” bill that will be sent back to the Senate for concurrence.<\/p>\n
We can only hope that the Senate refuses, and comes up with a rational definition of “renewable resources” for our state’s energy policy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Today SC state senators debated S. 360 in a House Agricultural and Natural Resources Subcommittee. It was surreal. The committee met to consider the bill that defines “renewable resources” in our state energy policy. The bill references solar, wind, hydro, … Continue reading