The Heritage Foundation’s stance against expanding subsidies for nuclear energy has once again been manipulated by the anti-nuclear crowd to infer that we are anti-nuclear. This time, Harvey Wasserman on The Huffington Post wrote that Heritage, along with some other groups, believe that nuclear energy is “too expensive to matter.”
To be clear: We are not anti-nuclear. The Heritage Foundation has written in study after study over the past three years that we not only believe that nuclear energy can be a critical part of America’s energy future but that nuclear technology can revolutionize energy production. However, to reach that potential, the United States must transform the policies and regulations that govern commercial nuclear operations. We believe that only an industry rooted in the free-market, supported by predictable and efficient regulation can yield such an outcome.
Our stance on nuclear power is not that it is too expensive to matter but that its promise is too important to subsidize.
Wasserman’s mischaracterization of our position on nuclear is not the only area where he misses the mark.
On nuclear waste, he states that the industry “can’t solve its waste problems.” This is just not true. The problem with solving the waste problem is not technical. It could be safely stored in Yucca Mountain or recycled or processed in any number of other ways that makes it perfectly safe for disposal. The problem is 100% political. For example, the Obama Administration’s fight to terminate Yucca Mountain is not based on a technical determination. It does not even want to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look at its feasibility. It is some other calculation that is driving the policy.
He states that it can not stop leaking radiation. While it is true that there have been a couple of highly publicized tritium leaks in recent weeks, it is also true that the nuclear industry has a long history of safe operations and that the NRC has done an outstanding job of ensuring that policies are in place to protect people and the environment from any such leaks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission strictly regulates the nuclear industry and the industry has an exceptional safety record as a result. When problems are identified, they are either fixed or operations cease. If contamination occurs, it is cleaned.
He states that the industry can not pay for itself or insure itself. On these points, Wasserman has a point, to a point. Industry is asking for subsidies as it attempts to restart itself after a 30 year hiatus. These initial subsidies have some justification given the massive risk that government policy poses and the way government played an integral role in shutting down nuclear in the past. These subsidies should be used to transition into an environment where the industry can support itself. So whether or not the nuclear industry can or can not pay for itself has yet to be seen. As for insurance, the Price-Anderson insurance program was put in place to ensure that the United States had a nuclear industry capable of support our national security requirements. In a perfect world, the program could be ended, however, industry does pay for the insurance as part of the framework and it fulfills the requirements of the Price-Anderson Act with private funding.
And finally, he makes the same tired arguments that new nuclear plants take too long to build. He claims that licensing and construction uncertainty the soonest a new plant could come on line is within seven years. Perhaps he is correct on this, but that is not a reason to forgo nuclear power. Just think, had the U.S. started in 2003, we would be bring our first plant on line today. And once the first one is hear, more can follow quickly. So if we start today, we could begin bring our new fleet of nuclear reactors on line by 2017. Similar arguments are made by the anti-drilling crowd, but if those companies who want to build new nuclear or drill in new areas deem a project profitable, why should length stop them?
That is not too long to wait for an energy revolution. And maybe that is what Mr. Wasserman is afraid of.
At The Huffington Post Nelson Davis, Executive Producer of MAKING IT! Minority Success Stories, describes his recent discovery of The Heritage Foundation’s 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. He came across the Index for the first time this year and while surprised by the results—showing a decrease in economic freedom in the U.S.—he found himself agreeing with the analysis. Growing up along the Canadian border, he had always assumed that America was the world’s leader in economic freedom:
You see, I grew up on the Canadian border in Niagara Falls, New York and I worked in radio and television in Canada’s capital, Ottawa for over ten years. My first business ownership was there when, with a partner, we opened Fat Albert’s Subs and Pizza. While every country has its entrepreneurial class and awe inspiring success stories, I never thought of our frigidly frolicking neighbors as being really business friendly. In fact, a feeling of heavy taxation and questionable national priorities is what prompted me to return to the U.S. and to work my trade here in the much warmer Golden State.
But now, with this year’s Index, he’s had to adjust that view and begin to think about the root causes:
So what did the U.S., a country built on the entrepreneurial spirit, do to lose our footing? According to The Heritage Foundation, we are now lacking in the areas of monetary freedom and property rights. Our government’s reactions to the economic and financial crises of the past couple of years are seen as interventionist. They say that the Washington gang’s actions discourage entrepreneurship, accelerate job losses, and weigh us down with record setting deficits. In countries such as South Korea, Germany, and Poland (yes, Poland) they defied the economic pressures and maintained or expanded economic freedom as measured by Heritage.
I agree with the Heritage Foundation folks that private and free enterprise does the best job of reducing poverty. Heavily regulated economies have an internal friction that slows or prevents forward movement and puts a chill on ambition. The public sector simply does not create value in the marketplace or incentivize its participants to be better and faster. High rank elected officials often talk about change, but they are really mired in the status quo.
What America needs is a return to the economic freedom that we have traditionally enjoyed. As Davis says, “We should be humbled by the fact that the economic freedom that lifted America to be the most prosperous country in the world is being systematically eroded and compromised.” The only way to turn this around is to reverse course, unburden entrepreneurs, and let the private sector do what it does best—create jobs and lasting growth.