Nuclear Socialism Energy subsidies—of any kind—are bad business

Here’s a principled alternative: Reverse the energy subsidy arms-race. Don’t add subsidies; subtract them. Take markets seriously. Not just for nuclear and fossil fuels but for all so-called “clean” technologies, head toward zero energy subsidies, free enterprise, risk-based credit pricing, competition on merit, cheaper energy services, greater energy security, and dwindling deficits.
Who wouldn’t like that? Why don’t we find out?

Amory B. Lovins is chairman and chief scientist of the independent, apolitical, nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org). He uses Doug Koplow’s subsidy analyses at www.earthtrack.net.http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html

Related articles

• Canada's oilpatch subsidies said to total $2.8B (ctv.ca)
• Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show (jamblemag.com)
• Are electric car subsidies a good idea? (marketplace.publicradio.org)
• A Challenge to China's Energy Subsidies (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Taxpayers to foot bill for power subsidies (news.theage.com.au)
• Energy Subsidies (politics.ie)
• Subsidies for Renewables, Biofuels Dwarfed by Supports for Fossil Fuels (eon.businesswire.com)

Sierra Club, Shell Oil, Cato, RMI, Exelon and ExxonMobil All Agree - Just Do Without So We Do Not Build Any Disruptive New Capacity by Rod Adams

I'm going to go out on a limb - I oppose energy efficiency programs that are marketed as a source of new energy. I know that some people who work in this field are quite sincere, but I have been paying close attention to energy issues for too many decades now to get hoodwinked. When Shell Oil Company, the Sierra Club, the Cato Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Exelon, and ExxonMobil (among many other strange bedfellows) all agree on the "best" source of new energy that is not really a source at all, I get really suspicious of the underlying motives.