Cato Institute sets John Stossel straight on "Nuclear Corporate Welfare"

[bananas]

http://www.npec-web.org/

Stossel Highlights "Nuclear Corporate Welfare"

3/23/2010 - John Stossel, a commentator for Fox Business News, blogs about his recent realization that the nuclear waste disposal and safety issues organizations like Greenpeace typically use to attack nuclear power are not the real reasons why it's a risky bet.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/03/23/nuclear-corporate-welfare/

March 23, 2010 11:32 AM EDT by John Stossel

Nuclear Corporate Welfare

Today Energy Secretary Steven Chu took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to sell his plans for more nuclear power:

America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president's 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors.

Hello? I like the idea of nuclear energy too, but if “America is on the cusp” of a revival, then taxpayers shouldn’t have to offer billions in guarantees! In a free country, when something is a good idea, it happens. Private capital makes it happen, without government force.

Why hasn’t it happened? I thought that nuclear power is a wonderful underutilized energy source, hampered only by idiots who believe the scaremongering pushed by the likes of Jane Fonda and The China Syndrome. After all, France gets 80% of its electricity from the atom, and they handle the nuclear waste without a problem.

But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight. Yes, the waste is manageable, he says, but affordable nuclear power is a Republican energy myth: “Take a Republican speech on energy and cross out nuclear, replace with wind and solar…and you’ve got a Nancy Pelosi speech on energy. Exact same thing.”

Even if Greenpeace et al stopped their ignorant obstructionism, says Taylor, new nuclear plants are “ just too expensive. The lifetime cost of building and operating is about three times more than coal-fired.” The Government Accountability Office and the CBO both recognize this. They peg the chance of default on a nuclear investment at 50 percent. Likewise, investors recognize the risk. They refuse to invest in nuclear unless the government guarantees every penny of the loan.

Natural Gas is much more practical source of energy.

I’ll talk more with Taylor about nuclear and other energy myths on my FBN show next week.

[Ian David]

1. Did The Cato Institute tell Stossel, "No, YOU give ME a break!"

When The Cato Institute has to reign-in Stossel, you gotta ask if he's finally jumped the shark.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. How much wind and solar power could we get for $8 billion?

[Dogmudgeon]

3. The Aynti-Nuke Movement - Now with 100% more Stossel

I'm still surprised that the anti-nuke movement has recently dedicated itself so passionately to free-market capitalism and getting the government out of the finance insurance business.

--d!
When the going gets tough, the radicals go to B-school.

[joshcryer]

4. Anti-nuke people are typically pro-capitalist anti-environmentalists.

[kristopher]

5. WTF?

Are you still on your meds?

:crazy: and :dunce:

[joshcryer]

7. On this forum anyway.

[kristopher]

8. No, the nuclear supporters are part of the coal and petroleum group

The primary motive is and always has been an easy answer to energy security. The choices of a person who places primacy on environmental values are not at all consistent with the production of nuclear wastes; especially considering renewables (which you spend all your time denigrating) are are proven, better options for addressing climate change.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[joshcryer]

9. Are you calling...

...the vast majority of posters on this forum except you and bananas shills for the oil and petroleum industry?

While at the same time, in another post, defending Cato for being against subsidies even though they redefine what subsidies mean, especially when it concerns coal, oil, and natural gas?

Seriously?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

6. K&R