Skip to main content

The Heritage Foundation on Lieberman-Warner

heritagelogo In general, we find Heritage Foundation documents to be well researched with a heavy overlay of conservative ideology, a combination that can be sometimes be useful for providing a philosophical framework but sometimes toxic to a full appreciation of a topic.

(We hasten to add that it is not the conservative basis that creates problems but the ideological determinism - any ideology can warp an argument if excessively depended upon. Practical realities tend to decay in the face of ideological calcification. Heritage has been guiltier of this than some.)

However, allowing for some free-market-trumps-all talk, Heritage's Jack Spencer has a good rundown of the issues facing Lieberman-Warner and tries to inject a bit of a counterweight into the conversation, particularly around the issue of nuclear energy and its potential role in mitigating greenhouse gas emission.

The article starts off with that end-of-days meme that we noted the other day:

The reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor since the mid-1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even one reactor today. Its industrial and intellectual base atrophied as the nuclear industry declined over the past three decades. Large forging production, heavy manufacturing, specialized piping, mining, fuel services, and skilled labor all must be reconstituted in massive quantities.

Don't worry - they have little hope for globalization, either:

Global supply is no more promising, especially when one considers that the rest of the world is coming to similar conclusions about the emerging role of nuclear power in meeting CO2 reductions. The global nuclear industrial base currently supports 33 reactors under construction (mostly in Asia and Russia) and the normal operation and maintenance of the world's existing 439 reactors (including those in the U.S.).

Frankly, we find all this a touch (even way) too pessimistic; Heritage, of all places, should see this potential for the revival or creation of new industry as a boon. We've seen through our glances at the world nuclear renaissance that where's there's a will (backed by a few dollars or euros, of course), there's a way.

But the article means to demonstrate that many nuclear plants could be built relatively quickly and provides a proscriptive 10-point list to achieve it. Here are the bullet points; you can see the explanations at the link.

1.  Let the market work.

2. Limit government support to that provided by EPACT 2005.

3. Hold accountable those leading the charge to cap CO2.

4. Put industry in control of fuel cycle management.

5. Open America's doors to legal immigration of skilled labor.

6. Remove commodity tariffs.

7. Liberalize the global commercial nuclear market.

8. Increase supply.The United States needs to increase energy supplies.

9. Take the lead in developing a new international framework for managing the global growth of nuclear power.

10. Reengage Nevada on Yucca Mountain.

Do we agree with all of this? Not really: nuclear energy is a non-starter in a deregulated environment and the United States in particular and the world in general have a vested interest in keeping their eyeballs on the flow of uranium. Heritage is closing in on a libertarian approach here that would make many policymakers nervous. But there are good ideas here, too, certainly worth further conversation.

As always, see what you think.

Comments

Joseph Somsel said…
Mr. Flanagan,

"{Nuclear is] a non-starter in a de-regulated environment" - not so. Just ask NRG about their South Texas Project Units 3 and 4. Merchant nukes are feasible, or at least are viewed practical enough to justify multi-hundred million dollar ventures.

I think you would be on firmer ground if you stuck to the issues under discussion rather than over-generalizing about the Heritage Foundation. What you call "ideology" might be termed "principles" by many. I'll agree that they sometimes, as we all do, presume a perfect world without compromises to pragmatism. For example, open door immigration has nothing that I can see to do with expanding our fleet of nuclear plants.

I will claim they have added more constructive criticsm than, say, Ralph Nader. The reason they presumably "would make so many policymakers nervous" is that many of their views are shared by so many voters.

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…