• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Stimulus with Some Energy

    An economic recovery plan that creates jobs, lowers gas and electricity prices, and won’t cost taxpayers $825 billion? Generally, when something is too good to be true, it usually is. And it’s probably the case here, but if I had a wish list of energy items to include in the stimulus package, it would look a lot like the Institute for Energy Research’s plan.

    • Defend jobs and investments against expensive, job-killing climate regulations;
    • Halt EPA’s attempt to use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide;
    • Renounce plans to bankrupt coal companies;
    • Denounce spending billions of taxpayer dollars on subsidies on products that could potentially double power costs;
    • Returning money spent on energy subsidies to taxpayers;
    • Streamlining regulations to produce energy from American resources on American lands and coastal waters;
    • Providing coastal states with 50 percent of revenue from offshore and onshore energy leasing;
    • Supporting exploration and energy production in ANWR;
    • Expediting construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline;
    • Allowing exploration and experimentation necessary to explore alternative energy sources, such as domestic oil shale and methane hydrates;
    • Limiting frivolous lawsuits that thwart responsible energy development;
    • Removing regulatory red-tape and repeal punitive laws that make it difficult to build and expand refineries;
    • Removing regulatory barriers to allow construction of the next generation of nuclear power plants; and
    • Resolving issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain Repository for spent nuclear fuel.

    Private investment in nuclear energy will create jobs – lots of jobs. And lots of good jobs. The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness has commissioned a study by Oxford Economics to examine the state-level occupational and economics of a revived nuclear endeavor in America. The study assumes 52 new reactors will be operational by 2030 and estimates the creation of 350,000 jobs.
    Two things to keep in mind. First, these are high paying jobs we’re talking about here. To build and operate nuclear power plants, the industry will require high paying manufacturing jobs as well as a slew of chemical, mechanical and nuclear engineers. Secondly, a lot of these jobs aren’t going anywhere. Unlike a windmill that requires little or no man power after it’s built, nuclear plants will have an estimated 900 full-time jobs generated for each reactor. That’s 47,000 jobs by 2030 with reactors that could last up to 100 years.

    The full report can be found here. The study also has an interactive website that breaks down employment, GDP, carbon emission savings, wages and tax revenue by state. You can check it out here.

    Unfortunately, the energy sections in the stimulus plan currently proposed by Congress do not address these issues; in fact, they could make things worse.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to A Stimulus with Some Energy

    1. Ozzy6900, CT (The Bl says:

      Interesting! These people know what they are talking about, which means that the Left will turn a deaf ear. They are too busy pushing this pork filled stimulus plan and trying to silence Rush Limbaugh.

    2. Robert Moen says:

      I agree with most of your points. But I think we must replace, not supplant coal generation with nuclear. I also believe th world is in fact experiencing global warming and CO2 plays a role. For my common sense energy plan see http://www.energyplanusa.com . Thanks for the forum.

    3. Ron Hansen, Bourbonn says:

      It fascinates me that the logic of the plan outlined above could be resisted.

      We have absolutely no proof that the slight rise in CO2 has anything to do with global warming (climate change)yet people conti ue to insist that thier "beliefs" be listened to and not facts.

      When it comes to energy production we should do all the above according to the best advantage it gives us in each region of the country.

      Why are those so concerned about the poor by the way so oblivious to the financial costs of high energy prices?

    4. Seth Winkel, Wiscons says:

      regardless of finger pointing,the private sector has the ability to build jobs that can control the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. I still wonder where all that heat we burn is going to…:)

    5. Thomas Gray South Carolina, says:

      Seth, good point I have often wondered the same thing, FF mainly NG and oil are soon going to be very expensive becouse not if but when the price of oil starts climbing again we will also turn more to NG so the price of it will rise also simply becouse it can be used as a transportation fuel.

      Atom power is the best answer, coal does cause acid rain and is very dirty, but usefull in a pinch, with atom power the price is steady [ for the electricity ] and our hard earned money stays in the U.S.A.
      among a few other very good reasons.

      Of course if one is trying to weaken the U.S.A. one would not want to allow inexpensive electricity.

      Here in Charleston SC we have very calm evenings ”wind power” will probably never power this house and the battery’s needed for solar systems currently being installed are not only very expensive to buy but to maintain also.

      Solar manufacturers bear part of the blame for the situation they find themselves in. The comment from SolarCraft president Bill Stewart (about potential buyers not wanting to tap into their home equity accounts) ”’ is telling”’: home improvement contractors made fortunes by convincing Americans that granite counter tops and elaborate decks and solar panels would improve the value of their homes. After transferring so much of that value to the contractors, we now find out it never existed in the first place.
      I’m with looking for cheaper systems — which the producers could sell, if they wanted to. Yet with all the advances in plug-and-play technology, they still rely on a network of over-priced installers to sell their wares. It can’t be that difficult to design these systems so that they can be sold at Home Depot and Lowe’s.

    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.