The nuclear industry could be instrumental in lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels, but the obstacles standing in the way are daunting. That's the message three Republican lawmakers and other energy experts are sending this week on NationalJournal.com's Energy Expert Blog.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said the challenges are twofold: overcoming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "resistance to nuclear power" and finding a place to store nuclear waste in light of the Obama administration's decision to scrap the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, worried that the NRC will not be able to review enough reactors to meet the projections laid out by the Energy Information Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal bodies. Barton also warned that taking Yucca Mountain off the table "raises significant regulatory and legal issues that may not only adversely affect the licensing and development of new nuclear plants, but also may impact existing operating nuclear plants."

Paul Sullivan, an economics professor at the National Defense University, wrote more about the complicated regulatory picture, saying that getting private investors to back new nuclear plants -- which Sullivan estimates to cost $7 billion to $15 billion apiece -- "is proving to be very difficult." For his part, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., touted a bill he recently introduced that would streamline the NRC's license review process. But, as some of the other experts pointed out, the NRC's process was already streamlined to address similar concerns in the 1990s. Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, wondered if nuclear was even worth it, saying, "Congress should not provide a lifeline to an inherently risky industry."

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, was doubtful nuclear power would really get a boost in any climate change bill, and he roundly criticized cap-and-trade: "Tying nuclear provisions to a profoundly bad idea still leaves a profoundly bad idea." David Kreutzer, a senior energy policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, went a step further and chastised proponents of cap-and-trade who tout the low costs of such a system: "Those who would continue to block nuclear power while trumpeting cost estimates that depend on a nuclear renaissance commit hypocrisy of the highest order." He argued that the low cost of cap-and-trade is dependent on "doubling... nuclear power generation over the next 25 years." And doing that, Kreutzer warned, would "require a big change from business as usual."

Nuclear Energy Institute President and CEO Marvin Fertel was the most positive of the bunch, which isn't surprising considering his constituency. Acknowledging the concern Barton raised about the EIA and EPA's projections, Fertel urged Congress to include a "robust nuclear energy title" in climate change legislation. Nuclear energy is carbon-free, Fertel pointed out; he also referenced other countries' success with this type of energy. He didn't, however, address the regulatory process or waste disposal, two of the biggest concerns voiced so far this week.

Check the blog throughout the rest of the week to see the ongoing discussion.

More in Energy Go to section

October 04, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Is Unpriced Carbon The Next Subprime?

September 02, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

Dems Seek Answers On Gulf Explosion

September 01, 2010 | Energy and Environment Bulletin

BP Spent Big On Advertising After Spill

August 24, 2010 | Tech Daily Dose

Biden: Stimulus Dollars Fueling Energy and Life-Saving Technology

August 17, 2010 | Insider Interviews

Deepwater Horizon's Enduring Lessons