Slashdot Mirror
Budget Deal Has Tax Credit Extensions For Nuclear, Fuel Cells, Carbon Capture (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A two-year budget deal was approved by the House and the Senate this morning and signed by President Trump a few hours later. The budget (PDF) included a slew of tax credit extensions that will affect how the energy industry plans its next two years. Most notably, the deal extended a $0.018 per-kWh credit for nuclear power plants over 6,000MW -- a tax credit that is primarily going to benefit one project in the US. That project is the construction of two new reactors at the Georgia Vogtle nuclear power plant.
Interestingly, a bipartisan effort to increase and extend tax credits for carbon sequestration passed through this budget. The bill was pushed through by Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). The bill would offer a tax credit per ton of carbon dioxide that is captured and either sequestered, used for another end product, or used for enhanced oil recovery. The credit applies to any facility that started carbon capture construction within the past seven years, and the credit extends for 12 years.
While the budget deal leaves the federal tax credit scheme for electric vehicles unchanged (automakers can still entice buyers with a $7,500 credit for the first 200,000 electric vehicles that roll off that automaker's line), the budget did include and extend some interesting tax credits for other kinds of non-traditional energy. Fuel cell vehicles saw an extension of tax credits that will allow purchasers of new cars a tax credit of between $4,000 and $40,000, depending on the weight of the vehicle (this is probably good news for potential customers of Nikola's in-development fuel-cell semis). Non-hydrogen alternative fuel infrastructure also scored, as the new budget lets installers of infrastructure for alternative fuels like biodiesel and natural gas deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing the new pumps. Two-wheeled electric vehicle buyers will also see a 10-percent credit extended (though that credit has a $2,500 cap). Per-gallon biodiesel and renewable diesel credits that expired at the end of 2017 will continue.
Interestingly, a bipartisan effort to increase and extend tax credits for carbon sequestration passed through this budget. The bill was pushed through by Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). The bill would offer a tax credit per ton of carbon dioxide that is captured and either sequestered, used for another end product, or used for enhanced oil recovery. The credit applies to any facility that started carbon capture construction within the past seven years, and the credit extends for 12 years.
While the budget deal leaves the federal tax credit scheme for electric vehicles unchanged (automakers can still entice buyers with a $7,500 credit for the first 200,000 electric vehicles that roll off that automaker's line), the budget did include and extend some interesting tax credits for other kinds of non-traditional energy. Fuel cell vehicles saw an extension of tax credits that will allow purchasers of new cars a tax credit of between $4,000 and $40,000, depending on the weight of the vehicle (this is probably good news for potential customers of Nikola's in-development fuel-cell semis). Non-hydrogen alternative fuel infrastructure also scored, as the new budget lets installers of infrastructure for alternative fuels like biodiesel and natural gas deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing the new pumps. Two-wheeled electric vehicle buyers will also see a 10-percent credit extended (though that credit has a $2,500 cap). Per-gallon biodiesel and renewable diesel credits that expired at the end of 2017 will continue.
Gets all the negativity when he signs a bill the left hates, but receives 0 credit for signing a bill the left praises.
So, will the nuclear credit cover the billions of dollars of cost in regulatory and judicial delays to nuclear construction? Nuclear is competitive; malicious politics is very expensive.
Carbon capture? Really? As in the fig leaf that defines 'clean coal'?
I understand that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good - but the whole clean coal thing mostly marketing for essentially free-wheeling carbon spewing, rather than an actual process to prevent environmental degredation.
It's like one of those phone calls for police/firefighter funerals - that when asked only give "up to" 15% of their take to their cause - they're PRETENDING to give to something you want to help, eating up all the good will that should be going to something the public wants to help, consuming that good will while the actual cause withers.
Sure - carbon capture can take a small percentage off of some effects of carbon spewing - but it only exists to pretend that you're doing something about a fundamentally wrong approach for our shared efforts as humans. It's basically the opposite of actually doing anything for the environment and the future of humanity - a fig leaf instead of clothing.
Ryan Fenton
not bad, what's the ##
What's the ... catch?
Reforestation is important, not just to capture carbon but also to replace trees lost to logging, development, fires, disease, and pests.
The catch is that trees take a long time to grow. So they are only part of the solution to all of the above. Managing existing forests carefully has to be considered also.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And Rand Paul is considered an extremist for opposing it.
Basically the deal is that everyone gets what they want and the deficit goes through the stratosphere. GO USA!
So kind of like 2009, except for the everybody part?
If Democrats cared about the environment they'd have kicked Carter in the balls for holding up nuclear power. The Democrats have held up nuclear power since Carter signed the law that created the Department of Energy. They spent all this money on a cabinet level department to solve our energy problems and we've not seen a new nuclear power plant in 40 years.
If the issue is energy independence, clean air and water, and reducing our carbon dioxide output then they've failed miserably. This is because of the Democrats. They complain about not having a place to put nuclear waste and when a place is found and construction starts the Democrats pull out the rug from under its feet.
Which also gets to the wasteful spending from the Democrats. They'll "create jobs" and "build infrastructure" on a nuclear waste site but when it comes time to actually put nuclear waste there then everyone is fired, the site abandoned, and we have nothing to show for all that money spent.
I don't like the Republicans, but the Democrats are no angels either. The Democrats had a hand in deficit spending too, like building roads to a nuclear waste site they had no intention on allowing to actually hold nuclear waste.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
one difference, in 09 we were on the verge of a collapse like the great depression. Now we are in moderate economic growth. During times like these is when you should start to prepare for the next downturn by reducing debt, not increasing it.
These are all subsidies that go to big business and they are obsolete, ineffective technologies.
Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. It's more expensive than coal, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. It's inflexible and has nasty waste problems. The only people who like it are the big utilities since it lets them raise electricity rates.
Fuel cells are fool cells. The most inefficient way to generate electricity. There are no natural stores of H2 so you have to generate it using natural gas (good for fossil fuel companies) or electricity (very expensive). By the time you go through the whole generate H2, compress it, ship it, run it through a fuel cell you only get about 20% efficiency. Complete waste.
Carbon capture is the wet dream of coal companies and other fossil fuel companies. "Clean coal" doesn't exist. It has never worked. It will always be too expensive for anything but a pilot plant. Waste of money and an excuse to burn more fossil fuels.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?