• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Washington Subsidies Can't Save Nuclear Power

    Facing new polling showing that 52% of the American people believe that he does not deserve a second term in office, President Barack Obama attempted to reach out to conservatives yesterday by promising $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees for a pair of nuclear reactors in Georgia. The President told an enthusiastic audience of union officials in Lanham, MD: “Those who have long advocated for nuclear power — including many Republicans — have to recognize that we will not achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.”

    In other words, as newspapers across the country have noted this morning, President Obama’s nuclear loan guarantee announcement is really nothing more than a transparently cynical attempt to revive his moribund cap-and-trade/energy tax proposals currently languishing in the Senate. In reality, the $8.3 billion announced yesterday is actually just a first down payment on the $18.5 billion in loan guarantees that were authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While the administration should be applauded for following the law, loan guarantees are not enough to recreate a robust nuclear industry in the United States. Indeed, an expansion of the program could do much more to stifle the industry’s growth than to help it.

    And expanding the nuclear loan guarantee program is exactly the approach the Obama administration plans to pursue. Their 2011 budget provides an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority to nuclear energy projects. When added to the $18.5 billion previously authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the American taxpayer will now be subsidizing $54.5 billion in loans to the nuclear industry. But just as conservatives do not support subsidies for wind, solar or biomass energies, conservatives should not support subsidies for nuclear power, either. Heritage Research Fellow Jack Spencer explains:

    Expansive loan guarantee programs, however, are wrought with problems. At a minimum, they create taxpayer liabilities, give recipients preferential treatment and distort capital markets. Further, depending on how they are structured, they can remove incentives to decrease costs, stifle innovation, suppress private-sector financing solutions, perpetuate regulatory inefficiency and encourage government dependence.

    President Obama’s bureaucratic/special interest/Washington approach to energy policy is clear: tax and regulate those energies unpopular with his political base while subsidizing and mandating the use of those energies that his supporters favor. This is the same approach the United States tried in the 1970s under President Jimmy Carter, and it was a colossal failure.

    What America really needs is a true free market approach to the energy sector, and the nuclear industry is a great place to start. Specifically, the federal government should: limit the loan subsidies of Energy Policy Act of 2005 to existing law; avoid creating a government-dependent nuclear industry; remain committed to scientific conclusion on Yucca Mountain; introduce market principles into nuclear waste management reform; and focus the government on key responsibilities like establishing predictable and effective regulation that will ensure safety and security.

    Just as with the health care debate, the White House seems to believe they can win conservative support for their big government policies by buying off selected industries. What the White House continues to fail to realize is that true conservatives are pro-market, not pro-business. Subsidies and mandates are never the answer to an ill-functioning market. A predictable and reliable regulatory framework where firms and consumers can find the best solutions through undistorted price signals is the better approach for energy, health care … and really just about everything.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    56 Responses to Morning Bell: Washington Subsidies Can't Save Nuclear Power

    1. Kurt Werner, Congres says:

      More a question: Who will benefit from the construction and operation of two reactors in Georgia? Follow the money Heritage Foundation.

    2. John Trotter , Dalla says:

      Nuclear energy soluatioin, If you think more carbon in the atmosphere is bad

      wait until it is radioactive. This is the worst soluation of all.

    3. Travis in VA says:

      I agree with the above, but what seems worse to me is that the new nuclear agenda is calling on small-to-moderate sized reactors built offsite and operated from military bases. This is the agenda described by Professor Stephen Bainbridge, a plan summarized best by Andrew Sullivan from the Atlantic, here:
      http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d

      And here in the Wall Street Journal:
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704

      Upon cursory review, the plan for smaller reactors on military bases may seem attractive, especially from a national security standpoint. My question is, who will construct these reactors? Who will operate them? Indeed, this new nuclear agenda threatens private industry, much the same way the health care public option did. These smaller, public reactors will "crowd out" demand for additional private nuclear energy companies, and cut their profit margin, the way FDR's drive for public electricity did in the 1930s:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01Tue4….

      Why the NEI is supporting loan guarantees at this point is beyond me. The cost and delay of nuclear licensing can be eradicated at the regulatory level, without subsidies, and definitely without a public power option.

      http://www.travisthornton.net

    4. Roy Nelson League Ci says:

      You can give the nuclear folks a trillion dollars in subsidies, loan guarantees, etc., but that doesn't solve the two biggest hurdles faced by the industry: the 10-15 year time frame for licensing and approval or the NIMBY mindset that prevails in a lot of areas of our country.

      What we need is for GE or Westinghouse to come up with a packaged design that once approved could be safely and quickly deployed and operational.

      If the US Navy can power a large portion of its fleet with reactor power there is no reason these technologies can't be adapted for civilian use.

    5. Tom, Okinawa, Japan says:

      As far as nuclear waste management goes, there is one solution that I never hear of and that is to put the waste in a rocket & shoot it into the sun. We can send a rocket to Mars so why not the sun?

    6. Francis Godici Osweg says:

      One reason that Nuclear Energy expansion is so difficult is the NRC and its sometimes ridiculous regs. Another is the fear mongering of organizations like the promoters of "beyondnuclear.org". Take a look.

    7. Jim Smith New York says:

      Nobama's principal contribution to the conversation are his teleprompter fed, neo-fascist ideas for those few still steeped in the glory days of hitler, mussolini and all those guys and gals who used to make the trains run on time. The only difference is Nobama just lies about it. Well, at least he's consistent about the lying.

    8. okiejim says:

      The case of a .22 caliber man in a .44 caliber job. My kids learned faster than the President is learning.

      Mr. President… we do not want your government run and controlled economy. Only the free market will solve the problems we face.

      We cannot be bought off by the sham offer of funds for a nuclear reactor program while you punish other companies for not playing your game. Don't try to punish us with Cap and Trade. Get out of the business of running our companies, bowing to the unions, punishing free enterprise, and taking over our economy. Get out of the healthcare business. You cannot rule by fiat (executive orders)! We have a Congress (such as it is). Let the system work. It is the basis of a free and independent country.

    9. Tom , MN says:

      Pretty safe bet on his part. With the history of the environmental crowd blocking all types of projects, green or otherwise we will not see very many nuclear plants go on line. Energy powers everything in our daily lifes and industry and the left is blind to see that without a growth in energy capacity we will spiral down to a third world economy.

    10. Joe Silvestrini says:

      With the credit markets still tight as a drum, lending institutions may not lend money without credit guarantees from the government. I agree with free market principals but loan guarantees at this time in an industry that has a proven track record may prove to be a better investment in energy sufficiency than any "green" energy alternatives with skeptical benefits.

      Obama should go further and reduce the time and money needed to get these new plants approved. Less government here would help greatly.

    11. Louis Levy Houston T says:

      Besides political calculation, is there any significant good there? The link is somehow special but whatever goes in the sense of collaboration might not be rejected, for America's good .

    12. Ozzy6900 says:

      President Obama can pour all the money he wants into nuclear power, the environmentalists will never allow a shovelful of dirt to be moved for a nuclear plant. It's a perfect setup, President Obama has a summit, back and forth "discussion" with the environmentalists to try to reach an understanding but the environmentalists won't budge. So President Obama throws up his hands and leaves office in 2012 claiming "I tried to do this for you".

    13. Richard Cancemi, Arl says:

      I hope the Republicans will avoid Obama's spider webs. Like a spider he seeks to deceive while enticing into his trap.

      A charlatan is a charlatan is a charlatan.

    14. Frank9024 says:

      I assume General Electric will provide the turbines for these plants?

      According to wikipedia it takes 10 years lead time or more to build

      a nuclear plant. What will the workers do?? Draw unemployment

      benefits for 10 years?? Yes, the winds of anxiety are feeding off of this

      whole lame protocol. What about all those violins of smog emissions

      out there filing lawsuits to stop construction. The man "Artic Al"

      might have to step in and make sure the domes look like polar

      ice caps. Needless to say there must be species of plants in the

      area that are so intelligent they can file their own lawsuits.

      Then there will be, at least, a 10 year process of naming the plants.

      Good names come to mind like: "Elvis Parkway" or "Lord Hybred's

      Coal Alternative" or "Tree Huggers Guerilla Gridlocks"..

    15. loves Dogs/Colorado says:

      a con artist/ a wolf in sheeps clothing/ and most assuredly someone who will say and do whatever it takes to get where he wants to to be……..

      THE SADDEST THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY.

      Politicians in washington dc. that don't give a darn about any OF US THAT PAYS THEIR SALARIES. IT IS A SAD DAY IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ALL OF US Including the stupidity of all the MAIN STREAM MEDIA that WON'T TELL THE THRUTH and won't be real AMERICANS and tell it like it REALLY IS because in the end they are in this MESS as much of all the rest of us. It will affect them as well. Their too stupid and goulable to realize it……

      Democrats have now made me realize that they are nothing but self serving morons that DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR POCKET BOOKS OR LIVES. IN FACT THAT SEEMS TO BE ALOT OF POLITICIANS. IT'S NOT ABOUT US OUT HERE BUT THEM GETTING TO WASHINGTON AND RUBBING ELBOWS WITH OTHERS TO SAY —- OKAY–WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR ME??? HOW MUCH CAN I GET IN KICK BACKS ETC.

      OBAMA AND HIS WHOLE STAFF SHOULD BE IMPEACHED!!!!!!!! NOW

      RUN OUT OF TOWN —– NOW

      Thank GOD above for Hannity, Levin, Wilkow, and Mike Church and SIRIUS RADIO

      I'm 64 and lived thru Carter and with these people the American people knew nothing other than what was being told to us thru mainstream media—-LIES…

    16. Tater Salad says:

      The President and his hand picked administration has already written the end of the script for his re-election. When he had the doors closed to transparency in Congress after his campaign promise on this issue, that was his defining moment. His fate was sealed and nothing he does now will change our minds. We do not trust him.

    17. loves Dogs/Colorado says:

      ANOTHER THING

      I can't believe Nuclear Plants came out of Obamas mouth.

      It was the DEMOCRATES and all the hippies and yippies and whatever else out there coming to my door to sign to have NO nuclear plants in Nebraska or anywhere else.

      These people are hipocrites!!!!!!! HUGE BIG HIPOCRITS

    18. Ed Angelo, Quakertow says:

      This article attacking President Obama's proposal on loan subsidies for Nuclear Power plant development is Exhibit One for making the case that you will never, ever approve of anything he does. The political right in this nation has attacked the environmental left ever since the dust settled at Three Mile Island, constantly bemoaning the lack of nuclear development. Well, here's a plan, but, ooooops, wait a minute, it's from that President Obama guy…ooooh, must be bad!

      And your suggestions for encouraging nuclear power development–wow, big surprise, in a word, let the market(the hand of God!?!?)take care of it–are absurd: you ignore NIMBY, the anemic economy, the grave need for more sources of energy, the dire consequences looming as the energy crisis deepens, the potential wars this crisis might spawn, the need for jobs, and other important factors.

      You want to attack this President no matter what–you want him to fail. It's just so obvious. You want him to fail, even though it would mean that our country would fail!

      Now don't forget today to genuflect before your Rush Limbaugh poster.

    19. Brown Derby, Iowa says:

      A skunk has as much chance of shedding his aura as Obama does of straying from his goal of subverting capitalism. The same stench lingers around this proposal as most of his other ideas. His knows that his leftist base will scuttle any progress toward building a new nuclear plant. This is just more twaddle for the masses.

    20. Donald Crewes, Trave says:

      This seems a folly to me. I may be misinformed but we have domestic reserves in fossil fuels (oil,gas,and coal) that we could be developing to tide us over until all the "pie in the sky" alternative energy is on line, and guess what, it is not government owned, it is private enterprise and actually make money for stockholders and the company…the problem is that government (congress and the president) control their ability to search for, produce and market that which we already have.

      Why should taxpayers fund something that is years away when we have the ability to bring reserves on line now?

      Let private enterprise work….maybe a stipend from the production and sale of all these "dirty reserves" (not my term) could go to a fund to assist the developement of the alternative energy sourses. Just make sure that it stays locked away for that purpose, we all know what can happen when our government is able to control or access this kind of money.

    21. john Arizona says:

      Is it any wonder that Jimmy Carter is smiling so much these days knowing that he'll no longer be considered the worst president in our history?

    22. Jim Warner, Kill Dev says:

      Here we go again! This administration obviously believes that no industry can survive or flourish unless subsidized by the federal govt. Federal subsidization (and it's concommitant interference) does nothing except prop up the weaker components of private industry. Those corporations that are unable to undertake nuclear plant construction have no business being in the nuclear generation field. To attempt to fund nuclear plant proliferation after closing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository is akin to the administration's attempt at closing Gitmo without giving any consideration as to the disposition of the terrorists housed in that facility. How many local governments are going to allow a nuclear plant in their "back yard" knowing that spent fuel will be stored on site? Just one more glaring example of the incompetence of this administration.

    23. D. L. Cromly Defianc says:

      Nuclear energy does seem to be the way to go to answer our nations energy problems, but, I do have a question that I can get no answer to. Is it safe?

      Let me explain. about 20 years ago I was having some health issues. My Dr. ordered blood testing for heavy metals, no problem found. However he received an anonomous call. The caller asked why he did not order me tested for strontium (may not be correct spelling, but close enough). He then hung up. The rest of the story goes like this. My Dr. did some research and called me in, drew some blood and sent it in. Guess what. you're right , it came back and I had levejs of strontium almost double what is sees as acceptable. I the started my own quest to find out how this could be. Called EPA. Their response was for me to find out where I was exposed and then and only then they woujd come out and investigate. That was a surprise. Called the Ohio State office of poison control, much the same response. I then was referred to a neurologist and he ordered another blood woek and this time ordered strontium. Never got a report back. When I tried to find what the results were I got the biggest run around you can imagine. In my research I spoke to a person that had gone through the same apparent cover up and received threatening phone calls to stop immediately, or else thy would stop them. Needless to say, I stopped my research also. This person told me that he/she had learned that there is a fallout within 200 mikes of these nuclear plants of strontium 89 & strontium 90 and plutonium. I do not know how much truth is in all this but, why the big secret> As a citizen I thought I should be told right up front. The door should not be closed if all is OK. Does any one out there have an answer for me????? Curlypoppa…… PLEASE

    24. Mike, Chicago says:

      We shouldn't subsidize any kind of energy production unless it's sustainable – no subsidies for nukes or any fossil fuels. Let the markets decide!

    25. Ken Jarvis says:

      I live in NV.

      HF is FOR bringing Nuke Waste

      THROUGH YOUR TOWN

      on the way out here to Yucca Mountain.

      Obama says – Yucca Mountain is DEAD.

      Thank you Mr. Prez.

      Putting YOUR waste in OUR STATE

      is like letting YOUR DOG CRAP IN OUR YARD.

      NOT GOOD

      LVKen7@Gmail.com

    26. Mitch - AZ says:

      Obamanoids are undermining free markets with crony capitalism. Had nuclear energy been left to entrepreneurs, it would have flourished. It was killed by onerous regulation, environmental impact statements, law suits, union wages, cost overruns through theft and corruption and stupid Hollywood movies. There WAS money to be made, but gubmint interference disguised as safety concerns and manipulation of public opinion has placed the industry in the "needs subsidies" category; successful only by the exploitation of tax payers, not through a time tested business model.

      This administration reminds me of the Sopranos – pay the vig and you can operate. Cross the mob and they'll shake down, then "bust out" your business.

    27. John Amato, Westford says:

      Here are a few interesting facts on temperatures in the United States.

      Seven of the record highest temperatures in the 50 states by state occurred in the past 20 years. 5 of those happened between June 27 and 29 of 1994. That represented one weather pattern that took place in the south western states during that short three day period.

      The recorded high temperature in 35 of our states occurred before 1940. The recorded high temperature in 40 states occurred before 1970. The highest record day was 134 F on 7-10-1913 at Green Ranch California. The majority of recorded high temperatures by state took place more than 30 years ago, long before the most recent “Global Warming Phenomenon”.

      Guess what, seven of the recorded lowest temperatures by state also occurred in the past 20 years. Only 26 of the recorded lowest temperatures by state occurred before 1940. 18 of the recorded low temperatures by state took place after 1970.

      There were almost two times as many state recorded low temperatures after 1970 as there were recorded highs temperatures by state in the same period.

    28. Bob Veigel, Arlingto says:

      Lies, lies and more lies. Another, at best, half truth regarding nuclear energy. Also understand there is no nuclear waste facility. Why would anyone in his or her right mind begin to build a nuclear plant? The current administration is very circumspect, devious, insincere and disingenuous. To put any faith in what it says is not only asking for disappointment but is also acting stupidly. Wake-up American's, evil is in the White House.

    29. Karl Kauffman says:

      In my opinion, the government need to work on the standardization of Nuclear Power Plant of the future. This would reduce the required engineering for each project and reduce both the cost and the time to grid.

      Also, the states need to get together on energy policy. Right now they are are all over the place with regulation. Power needs to be available to us all, just like health care. Buying and selling across state line needs to be encouraged, this will require the ststes to be closer in how they regulate. The federal government need to stay out of it.

    30. Roger / Clarence, NY says:

      Give the exprts who know how to grow an economy – other than printing more currency – an unhindered opportunity to do so, and keep the hands of Government, on every level, out of it! What life-enhancing product or technology has Government ever produced. Government could not even run a successful "worm farm." ;-) So get them out and give the Executive and Legislative branches a "salary" commensurate with their true capability – that of minimum wage! Better yet, mandate that those who truly want to serve the American people do so on a voluntary basis – and for a limit of up to four years! It is time to return to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

    31. Gordon Gunderson says:

      Conservatives like me, who are not financial or utility experts need to understand how the free market will come up with the 10's of $billions for a 'free market" solution. Is it realistic these days for projects of that size to not have some kind of government boost? Would of course prefer not but is it realistic?

    32. Dwana Townsend, Harv says:

      President Obama may have a high IQ but that doesn't mean he fully understands the position he holds. He is supposed to be a unifier, instead he is the most polorizing figure ever to hold the office. He is supposed to represent "We the People", but instead all he represents I and ME. He and his wife both flaunt their newly found wealth in the faces of unemployeed Americans, and it doesn't stop there. He has reneged on every campaign promise and doesn't even give the appearence that he even considers it important to the American population that he be held accountable to those standards, instead his arrogance gets in the way to the point were he appears above being held accountable for his actions.

      How did we let it get this far? Big Gvt takeover. Obama thinks building nuclear plants will create new jobs, and how many years does it take to get through that red tape? Buy the time we feel any affects from that, more jobs will be lost, more debt will be piled on.

      Instead, we should be solving the issues regarding National Security, the growing National Debt, Jobs, Social Security, as well as the tax code. We all can agree that some form of Health Care reform is needed, but this is not the bill Americans want rammed down their throats. We want to see Washington working in a bi-partisian effort to resolve these issues. Acutally we demand bi-partisianship. We are after all One Nation Under God.

    33. Joseph Arsenault Dre says:

      The safety of nuclear power plants is questionable in my mind because no Insurance company will insure property against a nuclear accident. Seeing as how the insurance companies are in business to make money, they obviously don't see this as a low risk money making proporsition.

      Thanks for your service

      Joe A

    34. Eddie MacIsaaac, Uni says:

      Another take action and do nothing at the same time. It will take 3 years for design and EnviorMENTAL Impact Reports [EIR] required by the Unconstitutional EPA

      and the endangered species that will need to be protected or mediated.

      Will the amount ppromised include the $ 4 Billion misappropriated for ACORN?

    35. Evan, Anchorage says:

      I agree with Carl Kauffman. Lets save some money and buy the latest technology from France and make all the plants the same. Admitt it, the US has been out of this game for 30 years. Neclear has a 60 year track record of really only one accident by a bankrupt USSR.

    36. Lee White Tanks AZ says:

      Excellent column. And, the conclusion could not be better stated. Just more of the same-o same-o from this administration. The"O" puts up one hand the new nuclear program complete with $Billions in federal largess, "watch the birdie," he cries. The other hand holds all the regulations and other road blocks to a vibrant nuclear energy solution.

      It is also interesting that nuclear power plant construction is one of the most completely unionized of all large scale construction programs. Also it is a well known fact that government inspection delays are alone a major factor in $Billion cost overruns experienced by this industry. These two factors work well together to produce huge union wages for these workers.

      And, we haven't even begun to talk about all the legal flak the environmental legal types can throw at this industry.

      I will bet any taker a steak dinner wherever that there will be no new nuclear power production facility in the US prior to this time in 2020, ten years from now.

      Note: the first comment from the Federal Nuclear Agency (or whatever) was that they could not produce a permit in less than two years!!

      PC is Thought Control

      LEE

    37. E. Worth says:

      I am not sure how I feel about this, except their are two things I do not like about it. I do not like Obama loaning our state, Georgia, any money. I don't like being indebted to the Federal Government. I feel we are doing fine with what we have got right now until we get our government out of debt provided he is not going to still add cap & trade on to the taxpayers expense. I do not want Unions doing this job if we are going to do it & I do not want GE having anything to do with it. I did not like the fact that they are advisers to Obama & that they, along with NBC, were bailed out by Obama. Like I said before the scientist Paul Jones I think is his name has admitted that in the last 15 years there has been no global warming & NASA even said that sun spots from the Sun would cause it & it is not man made. We do not need cap & trade & we can wait I believe on this Nuclear Plant & use that money on getting us out of debt first.

    38. Ronald Court says:

      The plants are "never gonna happen".

      Obama killed the money for storing radioactive waste at Yucca mountain in NV.

      Ergo, when environmental permits are sought, there will be no answer for that.

      Obama is slicker than WD-40.

    39. Ron says:

      Government should not provide subsidies, however, the reason for nuclear power's demise is very clear. The cost overruns and construction delays can be laid at the feet of the the enviro-nazis, filing a series of lawsuits that hamper/stop construction, from concept to completion. The other problem is: Who's going to operate these new plants? A operator's license requires an intensive 18 month training program regardless of prior experience (in other words a recruit from a high school completes the same training program as a 30 year veteran of the Navy's nuclear propulsion program). Currently they say only 10% of the young populace is qualified for military service (a hodgepodge of factors, that include high school grades, physical condition, and criminal activity, affect eligibility). Let me tell you that the percentage of those who then are qualified to receive nuclear power training is only about 10% of that (mostly due to academic issues, assuming they were otherwise eligible for service), and 20% of them can't make it through to the end of the 18 months (due to a combination of academic issues, discipline issues, and inability to adapt to the demands of the military). And of course you can't start until you pass a background check (probably less intense than the check for a security clearance, but similar). And then, who trains all these new potential operators and maintenance personnel? The Navy produces a hybrid of operator/maintenance technician. The civilian nuclear industry produces operators, maintenance people, and trainers separate from one another (in other words; operators don't do maintenance, maintenance doesn't operate). In the north the maintenance people and ancillary operators are highly unionized, thus increasing the difficulty in training (the average Navy nuclear power student spends 50 hrs per week in classroom lectures and labs, and an additional 20 hrs [some many more] doing homework and studying for an average of 2 two hour examinations per week [all essay and hand graded]. Imagine telling union employees that they will have to work 30 extra hours on their own to pass the course. My buddy at three mile island tells me they start whining and he got counseled because he took an extra two minutes to finish a point being made during a class and ran over the 50 minute block. Bad news indeed. Being a conscientious operator requires a dedication to your craft beyond monetary compensation and tracking hours. You must be willing to spend what time it takes to complete the course. This is of course why Reactor Operators, and the training departments at power plants are salaried rather than hourly employees. Now I'm all for new nuclear power plants, in fact, please build one right in my back yard, and I'll walk to work (ohh goody, I can cut my carbon footprint). But it can only be successful with good common sense regulations, and an end to frivolous road blocks allowed on almost a daily basis to skyrocket the costs of getting the plant on line.

    40. Blair, Franconia, NH says:

      Nuclear power has suffered in the 31 years since Three Mile Island. Since Three Mile

      Island, the worst nuclear accident until Chernobyl, in 1986, was the tipping point for

      American public opinion, it turned against nuclear power. A year after Three Mile Island, WPPS, the Washington Public Power Service, cancelled its bonds to build new nuclear power plants. The TVA also cancelled new nuclear power plants that it

      was going to build. A Massachusetts power company cancelled the Pilgrim II Reactor.

      Even anti-nuclear activists wanted to cancel the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, here in New Hampshire. France is the only country that uses nuclear power. Even Germany uses nuclear power. Why haven't there been any new nuclear power

      plants built since 1979? The Enviro-Nazis, like Green Peace, won't allow them to be

      built. If we'd pressed on, despite public opinion, we wouldn't have waited this long.

    41. toledofan says:

      It looks like this article really hit a nerve. Some really good feedback, so, here's my take; we have to develop a comprehensive energy plan that allows for drilling, the use of clean coal, natural gas and developing alternate energies that make sense, these things need to happen concurrently. The real reason we haven't built any new nuclear power plants is that the environmental movement fights the storing of the spent fuel trods and waste and it takes a lifetime to get through the red tape to get the permits necessary. Until we open the market to drilling, cleaning the coal, etc., nuclear power won't help very much. I think this is more of the same old empty rhetoric we heard on the campaign trail. Lots of talk and no action.

    42. Ken Jarvis says:

      SAVE THE SCHOOLS

      Put a Sales Tax on Advertising

      it would get the States $30 Billion

      a year,

      and the ONLY cost would be

      FEWER ADS.

      Why is the GOP opposed to Saving the Schools?

    43. Mike Keller, Overlan says:

      … spend around $7 billion dollars for a nuclear plant or around a billion for an equivalent natural gas fired plant. Therein is why nuclear power really does not make a lot of sense.

      Standardazation will not make that much of an impact on cost — the French units are also extremely expensive.

    44. Ron Derry NH says:

      I hate to admit it but it looks as though Hugo Chavez could do a better job than Obama is doing…once again an American product, supported by union labor and fed to us at a cost that exceeds its worth is inferior to a foreign made product of similar use.

      Obama is to the presidency sold to us by Madison avenue, to fill a need we don't have and at a price we can't afford and has become an all too familiar site in fine retail stores everywhere, where as the foreign dictator would be cheaper, do a better job but unfortunately would probably last longer.

      Like tickle me Obamo(Elmo)….whose presence has lost its charms and we are now stuck with a useless senseless toy that won't shut up!

      The rhetoric to subsidize Nuclear but cut back on funding for its disposal is typical bait and switch. I can't buy a toy that speaks jiberrish all day long and like Elmo doesn't make sense even when we pretend he is talking about real things.

      Tickle me Obamo but you get no more warm embraces for your boyish charms we are all grown up now. We see you for what you are and need to move on to reality, as the ship is sinking.

    45. Winston, Georgia says:

      The answer to all social and economic problems…..MORE GOVERNMENT and MORE MONEY. This administration operates as if they are running out of time. More government is not the answer. Watch the government jobs number. It is the true indicator.

      This culture does not believe in taking pain. And that will be it's downfall.

      Only by enduring some pain and losing the marginal jobs will an economy be stronger in the long run. Right now the government is picking winners and losers, not the free markets. There will probably be some long term success stories that come from the stimulis that the main stream media will pound us with for the next ten years. BUT we will not be has well off as we could be in total GDP five years from now.

    46. Jim Freeman says:

      I enjoyed your article and find it to be on target as to assisting markets not leveraging them.

    47. Dave Minnesota says:

      Obama will have to remove the excessive regulations of the industry. They must speed up the final construction date, and he knows it! He just doesn't want to do the job right! His left worshipers won't let him! Mr. Obama does not want to clean up the built-in delays by the environmental groups. It is as if he and the environmentalists worshipers want to get even with users of power!

    48. Gary. Nevada says:

      How many nuclear powered ships, and submarines in the Navy?

    49. An drew Ribner, M.D. says:

      Mr Carroll is spot on in this piece. The free market and the information it gives us in the way to allocate resources, improve or advance products or technology is invaluable and can never be replaced by a command economy. Distortions to those signals with subsidies, regulations, or taxes never provide a successful end result. If our schools educated our children more effectively, the electorate would be able to see this more clearly.

      As taxpayers, we hardly need to guarantee loans in an industry where regulation and legal challenge has prevented a new powerplant from coming online for 30 years.

      The practice of taxing and regulating those industies of which you disapprove and subsidizing those which you favor are two classic examples of distorting the free market for political gain .

      Thank you, Mr. Carroll for speaking out so clearly.

      Andrew Ribner, M.D.

    50. John, Colorado says:

      A customer who was an electrician told me he worked on the Ft. St. Vrain nuclear power plant in the first half of it's construction. It was 60% done when he left that job. He visited the plant years later and it was only 40% done then. The NRC had changed the plan so many times it was behind schedule even farther. The dangerous thing was that there were so many plans and revisions, track had been lost of actual construction details in some places. That plant closed early because it was dangerous.

      A girlfriend's father told me that when he was a young teacher, a friend got him a summer job, ahead of hundreds of others, at the Callaway County nuclear power plant in Missouri when it was being built. He was working away on his first day on the job, bolting some plates up on a wall. In the afternoon, his friend stopped him and told him not to work so fast, he was making the other guys look bad, and they were getting angry. They might drop a beam on him or something.

      I don't think this nation has the moral fiber to safely build a nuclear power plant anymore. It would be an Obama thing to build one to destroy the South someday.

      Regarding Yucca Mountain, it is said that Brown's gas somehow neutralizes radiation. This should be verified and if true, the problem of disposing of nuclear waste is done and over with. The problem remaining for nuclear power is the morality of Americans, particularly those in Unions.

    51. Joseph Lachawiec, Ma says:

      I am a retired director at Elizabethown Gas Company in NJ and also retired from Phila. Gas Works. I am now the Mayor of the town next to the Oyster Creek GS, and I am proponent of nuclear energy, however, some of the comments on how the free market will "save" our economy are mere platitudes…give me some meat on dem bones as to how the "free market" will build new nuke plants. I have reached out to Exelon on at leats 5 occasions within the last several months…they totally ignore my requests for a meeting on how a new nuke plant could be built next to the exiisting, 60 year old plant.

      See my comments on this link:

      http://www.wobm.com/pages/6004997.php

      best regards,

      Joseph Lachawiec, Mayor

    52. Pingback: Washington Subsidies Can’t Save Nuclear Power « Truth2Freedom's Blog

    53. Jeff, Bellingham, WA says:

      If you want a safe reliable nuclear power keep the government out of it. I spent nine years in the Navy five stationed on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. If the Navy can power most of their fleet with nuclear power safely, the private sector can also.

    54. OleProf, Washington, says:

      The contention is sound that energy investments ought to be governed by the market, not government fiat or loan guarantees, PROVIDED that the regulatory regime allows the market to function. Obama's position is interesting because reactor construction has been strangled in the cradle by his party for more than 30 years because of irrational fear, fed by Hollywood. With a reasonable approach to environmental and licensing concerns, proper regulation of reactor operation, and newer designs and technologies, e.g.,pebble bed reactors or thorium fuel, nuclear energy is a good choice.

    55. GEORGE Swallow says:

      I believe Congress can substantially improve power supply by allowing homeowners to buy power from any adjoining State. Monopoly cost of supply is driving people out of their homes. Lets run a computer model using actual square footage to energy bills in adjoining states.

    56. Cee, North Carolina says:

      To all those people who want nuclear power plants, please sign up to have them built in you backyard and see whats happens. You property value will drop so fast you wont know what hit you. They consume so much freshwater . The GOP is campaining for 100 more nuclear power plants. Imaging this country with 200 nuclear power plants producing so much nuclear waste. Where are they going to put it? In the mountain? Landfill? The Ocean? How about your backyard?

      The future is Solar Power! Its Free! We have solar powered garden lights, solar powered police radars, and solar powered homes. And it does not produce any waste!

    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.

    ×