• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: The Left's Nuclear Nightmare

    The U.S. Department of Energy officially submitted the license application to build a nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada earlier this week. A strong supporter of the Lieberman-Warner carbon-capping bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was incredulous, telling reporters: “Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be.” However, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) both recognize that their bill will not pass without more nuclear power.

    Far to Warner and Lieberman’s left though, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) thinks their bill does not need to reform the nuclear industry: “Already in the bill there’s a whole funding stream for these low-carbon, noncarbon energy sources and that’s sufficient. I don’t think you need more.” It is nice that Boxer believes this–but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) sure don’t.

    Throughout the debate on Lieberman-Warner, activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund have quoted selectively from EPA and EIA studies to minimize the ruinous effects the bill would have on the U.S. economy. For example, this press release celebrates the fact that under Lieberman-Warner the economy will grow by 80 percent by 2030.

    What the EDF doesn’t tell you is that the same report says Lieberman-Warner would raise energy prices by 44 percent in the same time frame. But the real kicker comes when you look at the assumptions the EPA made to come to its conclusions. Despite the fact that the U.S. has not built a new nuclear reactor in two decades, the EPA assumes that the U.S. will build 50 new reactors in the next 25 years.

    Without these new power plants, which the Environmental Defense Fund no doubt will oppose, the U.S. economy will be 650 gigawatts of electric power short of its needs. That will send the price of energy through the roof — and kill many more jobs than the EPA currently estimates.

    The EIA also cooks new nuclear power plants into its books. EIA estimates that with new nuclear power plants, the price of electricity would rise between 11 percent and 64 percent by 2030. But the EIA’s nuclear estimates are even more ambitious than the EPA’s. To keep the increase in energy prices from Lieberman-Warner as low as possible, the EIA assumes the U.S. will build almost 200 nuclear power plants over the next 25 years. You won’t find that fact on the Environmental Defense Fund website.

    Although Joe Lieberman is at least realistic about the role nuclear power must play to keep the economic damage from his legislation to a minimum, he does not have a firm grasp on the legislative changes needed to revive the nuclear industry. Lieberman proposes adding funding for training plant workers and nuclear engineers. That isn’t the problem.

    The regulations that have strangled the nuclear industry for a generation need a systematic overhaul that includes: putting industry in charge of fuel cycle management, supporting regulatory relief, removing tariffs on needed construction materials, expanding domestic production of uranium, taking the lead in developing a new international framework for managing the global growth of nuclear power, and, of course, finding a role for Yucca Mountain in the industry’s fuel-management system.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Morning Bell: The Left's Nuclear Nightmare

    1. BARB, MN says:


      After $31 billion and counting, utilities cry "hold, enough!"

      March 9, 2011

      The nation's electric utilities have collectively paid the U.S. Department of Energy $31 billion to "take away" their radioactive waste. But of course, there is still nowhere for it to go – a problem that is likely to persist indefinitely. Given the lack of a waste dump or other "solution," the utilities are suing the DOE to try to suspend fees they pay the government for nuclear waste storage. But the DOE wants to keep collecting its annual fees because, as the agency tellingly admits to Automated Trader, "they'll eventually develop a long-term storage solution. And when they do, it's likely to be expensive."?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.