• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Clean, Safe Energy - and lots of it!

    Earlier this week, The Heritage Foundation hosted Veteran journalist William Tucker, who recently released his book, “Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey.”

    The event is available for viewing here. Windmills, solar collectors and geothermal plants can make a small contribution at the margin, but they will never provide us with base load electricity. The U.S. currently receives about 20% of its electricity from 104 nuclear power plants.

    Whether you fall in the global warming skeptic crowd or you’re a true believer that man-made carbon dioxide is cooking our planet, there’s a good chance you’re pro-environment. The United States has not built a new commercial nuclear reactor in over 30 years, but the 104 plants operating today prevented the release of 681.9 million metric tons of CO2 in 2005, which is comparable to taking 96 percent of cars off the roads. If CO2 is the problem, emissions-free nuclear power must be part of the solution.

    So, how do we get more reactors?

    The first step is expediting the process it takes for a company to submit a license application to build a new reactor to complete construction of the plant. Fast tracking the process will get new nuclear power plants up and running in the United States. Currently the process unnecessarily takes four years or longer to run through the permitting process before construction can even begin. To expedite this process, Heritage nuclear expert Jack Spencer has outlined a fast-tracking program that would cut those four years down to two. Here’s how:

    • Focusing NRC Resources. Per congressional direction, the NRC should focus its resources on permitting designated fast-track applications as quickly as possible without sacrificing safety or quality assurance.

    • Mobilizing National Laboratory Capabilities. Although the NRC already uses the national labs to support their activities, the national labs should be compelled by Congress to organize themselves to support the fast-track applications.

    • Focus University Funding Around Supporting the Effort. The Department of Energy funds programs that support nuclear education in the university system. These programs should be focused on supporting the NRC’s fast-track program. This would not only provide additional resources to fast-tracking permits but would also develop a workforce with the technical expertise to design and operate America’s reactors.

    • Ensuring a Science- and Technical-Based Assessment. The NRC must have the freedom to pursue a transparent, fact-based process in a non-adversarial environment. While inputs from local stakeholders must be accommodated, the NRC must be allowed to make decisions based on good science and engineering in a timely manner. This requires an efficient process that allows legitimate concerns to be heard and resolved without being hijacked by outside, agenda-driven interests.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Clean, Safe Energy - and lots of it!

    1. Dave McDuffie, lagun says:

      There are hundreds of thousands of American jobs just waiting for the taking! Get rid of the knuckleheaded regulations and drill, refine and build!! Those jobs mean millions into the treasury and some very happy people. People are more satisfied when they work for a living and get paid for it, rather than just get a meager handout from the government which they will soon hate for keeping them where they are!

    2. Pingback: » Clean, Safe Energy - and lots of it!

    3. Quincy Holloway says:

      One word….NIMBY. Precious supporters of nuclear energy, always tauting the "green" aspects of its production. "blah, blah blahing" the serious dangers associated with the transport logistics of moving thousands of gallons of deadly toxic waste through Americas communities and countryside. It's easy to shrug off the billions in cost overruns, no doubt a sign of our times, but I would like some serious discussion on the likelihood of ANY new nuclear facility getting permitted within 100 miles of your hometown. Didn't think so. Not to mention the 10 year construction timetable, vast amounts of water consumed in the operation a plant, and dare I mention the more likely chance of human error resulting in meltdown. Even if you could guarantee the 100% safe lifetime operation, transportation and storage of waste, and defense of a nuclear facility, building more would only increase your mathematical probability of error by an already predetermined factor sure to be found in some DOE assessment.

    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.

    ×