Skip to main content

Ahh, That Heritage Foundation: Nuclear Ideas & Partisan Hectoring

480x230_AskHeritage_VER2 The Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler offered up some nuclear prescriptions to the new administration in yesterday’s Washington Times:

First, Washington should create a level playing field for energy ideas. That means no longer artificially favoring one new energy source over another and instead creating a strong, market-oriented approach to energy so that the best sources can expand. It's time to say no to lobbyist-driven subsidies and phase out existing ones.

Second, Congress and the administration must commit to respecting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s authority to review the permit application to construct the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository in Nevada.

Third, we need to cut the red tape now slowing plant construction. The arduous, four-year nuclear-plant permitting process should be replaced with a new two-year fast-track process for experienced applicants who meet reasonable siting and investment requirements.

We don’t disagree with any of it specifically, though we’re reasonably sure Butler knows that banning lobbyist-driven subsidies needs 536 members of Congress to sign on to it – and since all of them would deny being thus influenced, they see no need to stop it. (It’s a wee bit of a red herring anyway; lobbyist activity flows from many sides of an issue, though admittedly, some lobbyists are much more effective than others.)

You may have noticed the call for a “strong, market-oriented approach” and thought to yourself, Ahh, that Heritage Foundation. But Heritage has in the past been more likely to throw government under a bus and back up over it, so this represents something new – a recognition that government and industry are in the energy business together. Heritage favors the industry side, the Center for American Progress the government side. That’s just how it goes in the wide world of partisan big thinkers.

We can’t let Butler go – but do read his whole article; it’s pretty good – without tweaking him a bit:

Anyone old enough to remember the 1979 movie "China Syndrome," about the deadly cover-up of a nuclear accident, knows Jane Fonda and other liberals would have a fit at the idea of more nuclear energy.

Ahh, that Heritage Foundation. The red meat’s getting a little gray and mealy there. Even kids of my generation remember Miss Fonda more as an exercise guru. We think Heritage would do itself a big favor by recognizing that nuclear energy isn’t quite the liberal danger flag it used to be. Even anti-nuclear environmental activists are beginning to look like dead-enders. Heritage’s ideas are good enough that there’s really no need to throw slop to the hard core.

One of the Heritage Foundation’s initiatives. We have a feeling if you ask Heritage a question, Jane Fonda might well be part of the answer.

Comments

Jason Ribeiro said…
Though I agree with the general spirit of not picking any energy winners or losers as a matter of government policy and leveling the playing field, each energy source is different and to make things fair there might need to be some kind of "affirmative action" type plan for energy. For example, wind turbines and solar panels don't bear the burden of a 4 million dollar per year license fee that a nuclear plant does. In addition, they get their sprinkle of subsidies from federal, state and local sources.

Polluters should have to pay for their pollution and clean sources should be rewarded, but nuclear can't compete in the low cost clean energy arena -- yet. While the cost per KWh might be the lowest for nuclear, the upstart costs are another story.

As to exactly what policy apparatus could be constructed to make the playing field more level, I'm not exactly sure, but for starters I'd like to see some research money and policy changes made to create a new small reactor market, however the recent paper from the NRC in regards to small reactors isn't encouraging, bordering on adversarial.

As the gov't. seems to be very willing to throw more research money toward wind and solar, it's doing a good job of picking some favorites unfortunately.
Joseph Somsel said…
for a bit of perspective about the TMI accident, it took place 28 years after the first nuclear-generated electricity (1951) from Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I).

But TMI happened 30 years ago.

Hence we're further down the development path today from TMI than TMI was from the first nuclear generator.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…