No to Big Government Solution on Nuclear Power

Yes, we need clean, green, nuclear power to achieve real energy independence in the long term, (along with on and offshore drilling) but this is not the way to go about it. Don't waste our time, don't waste our money. We can't afford this wrongheaded approach! Heritage:

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.

It's Jimmy Carter all over again--not a prescription for economic or electoral success. Read on for the alternatives.

Stop trying to bribe us--we just want a level and reliable playing field so the market can work on its own.

More. NRO:

Construction also takes a long time (the new plants are predicted to be operational in 2016 and 2017, which is quite fast). Add these together and it can easily be 20 years from beginning the permitting process to turning the switch on, which makes it impossible to put together the requisite financing package without government loan guarantees. [snip]

If the president wants to go further in demonstrating his commitment to nuclear energy — and reduce the burden on the taxpayer should something go wrong — he should seek to wean the industry off its reliance on the state. The best way to do that is to streamline the permitting process further. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s new permitting process is a good first step in that it reduces the time from application to license issue down to just four years in ideal circumstances; by way of comparison, the United Kingdom’s Labour government has announced a new process whereby planning application and licensing together take just one and a half years. Indeed, the Brits believe that with this new process a whole fleet of new nuclear plants, not a mere two, can be operational from 2018 — without government subsidy. Such a bold step would be an even clearer signal to the market that nuclear is back than loan guarantees and would certainly spur innovation and competition in the sector once more. [snip]

So the price for state support for two — count ’em — new nuclear units, when the president’s own economic plans call for 100 over the next two decades, is billions of dollars in green pork that will do little to meet America’s energy needs.

So once again, the president’s plans do not match up to his rhetoric.