Senator's overtures don't have comfort zone

Today's Topic: Nuclear vs. cap and trade
Our View
The growing drumbeat for nuclear power in this nation demands caution at every beat of that drum.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has introduced an audacious proposal to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years as a way to address the nation's concerns about global warming and the need for clean energy. The senator sees nuclear power as an answer to the cap-and-trade legislation in Congress that he calls a job-killer and a virtual tax increase.
But in trying to win favor for nuclear power, the effort only underscores some of the concerns about nuclear power that already exist. Alexander says, for example the federal government should double funding for research on dealing with nuclear waste from plants, which inherently acknowledges that concerns exist about nuclear waste. He says the "main obstacle" to nuclear power is "a lingering doubt" in the public's mind about the nature of the power source. Those doubts didn't emerge in the public's consciousness without basis.
The public has seen some of the dangers associated with nuclear power realized in their lifetime. It is no wonder many people are skeptical about its use.
The senator says the program should make sure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has enough staff members to review applications. For such an ambitious program, that would require a lot of brainpower, for sure. But one of the intriguing aspects of the Alexander proposal is the cost involved with the production of so many plants. He calls for offering $18 billion to $50 billion in loan guarantees to help develop the plants, and he is quick to point out that those are loans to private entities, not government grants. But consider the cost of building those plants, and consider that the nation has seen this scenario before, where it once went down the road of nuclear power only to back out as public support waned. Those government-backed loans would suddenly fall squarely on taxpayers if investors default.
Any critics of President Barack Obama's policies for propping up the private sector should be skeptical of a plan on nuclear power plants. The Obama strategy has been to apply help in areas that at least have a record of success. Nuclear power has a record of worry in this nation.
The senator is suggesting that nuclear power is the best alternative given what he views as a complicated energy policy being pursued in capping carbon emissions. The search for alternatives has certainly been complex, and much of it will be experimental. But public support for those ventures is wide and deep, quite in contrast to mixed opinions on nuclear power.
Many alternative energy programs are being launched in Tennessee. Elsewhere, even oil giant Exxon, whose profit-hungry antics have been a source of disgust among American consumers, is investing and experimenting in turning algae into liquid fuel.
The quest for electricity has taken some convoluted turns. Nuclear plants may reduce carbon emissions, but they bring their own unique concerns to the debate. Alexander can sometimes be difficult to read on environmental issues. When it comes to issues that affect sites like the Smoky Mountains, the senator is splendid on standing up for nature. But it's hard to square that with his adamant opposition to a concept as sensible as wind power.
Alexander deserves praise for keeping the clean energy debate on the front burner. But this particular option looks too dicey, even for a nation desperate for options in energy.