Expanded incentives and loan guarantees are key to bringing plants online as soon as possible.
Congress has enacted legislation, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that has spurred utilities to consider building the first new plants in 30 years. In addition, the regulatory uncertainty of the NRC licensing process has been simplified and tested. Those are some of the positives, but the need for government action remains. Despite legislation passed by Congress to encourage the expansion of nuclear power, the implementation of legislative directives at the agency level has often been out of step with real-world timeframes. The delay in implementing the Loan Guarantee program, for instance, may prevent new nuclear facilities from coming online as soon as possible because companies may have to delay or cancel their projects. The NRC also faces a funding shortfall from its budget request that may force it to defer or delay the review of applications for new projects. Near- and medium-term support for the Paducah plant with a contract to enrich DOE's high-assay tails would ensure that it remains available to meet the needs of domestic utilities past 2012.

Federal increases in domestic nuclear power production are vital for America’s successful leadership role in safe global nuclear energy production.
Worldwide, 31 countries operate 439 reactors totaling 372 GW of electricity capacity.
Thirty-four new nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide, and when completed will add an estimated 28 GW of new electricity. This new construction is taking place or being considered in every major region in the world including Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and North America. Nuclear power’s ongoing expansion around the world requires us to address the used fuel and proliferation challenges that confront the global use of nuclear energy. To ensure that the United States plays a significant role in global nuclear energy policy we must foster domestic actions that support a significant role for nuclear power in our energy future, a robust nuclear research and development program, and a cutting-edge nuclear technology infrastructure and international actions that support reliable nuclear fuel services to countries that forego the development and deployment of enrichment and reprocessing technologies. We have made progress in every one of our program areas, but much remains to be done. (Albright)

Incentives are needed to start up the nuclear energy industry which would lead to more investors, starting up the nuclear renaissance
Issues of economic risks are central to nuclear power plant investment decisions. There have been numerous examples of construction cost over-runs and delays. Regulatory risks are significant in nuclear power plant planning and licensing. There are also risks of generic defects in design and of accidents during construction. In a free market these risks would all fall to the investors before a single unit of electricity had been sold. Investors confronting issues of nuclear power would therefore seek to internalize these issues of economic risk via a substantial risk premium.

Investors’ negative perceptions of the economic risks associated with nuclear power is in addition to any aversion to invest that might arise from political attitudes among the community of investors. The future of nuclear power is vulnerable in ways that did not apply in the old days of state control.

The economic risks of nuclear power tend to fall to the private investors during the ten years, or more, of power plant construction and licensing. By contrast, however, the economic risks associated with gas-fired generation tend to relate to the operational phase and the risk of primary fuel price volatility once electricity is being sold. In the case of gas-fired generation these economic risks do not fall on the original investors in the construction, but rather are passed directly to electricity consumers. (Nuttall)