The NYT's John Tierney is happy some environmentalists are reconsidering the costs and benefits of nuclear power, but not so thrilled that Congress wants to lavish another layer of subsidies on the industry. Alas we've seen this all before.

Environmentalists originally supported nuclear power because of its obvious benefits: no dirty air from smokestacks, no need to strip the ground for coal or dig for oil. Economic benefits, however, were not so obvious to investors, who were leery of the plants' costs and new problems, like accidents and waste disposal.

But Washington decided that nuclear power was so good for the environment and national security - how would America cope with the crisis when fossil fuels ran out? - that it should be subsidized. The federal government exempted the industry from full liability for accidents and took responsibility for waste disposal.

If Washington hadn't acted, nuclear power plants wouldn't have been built so fast, maybe not at all. But if the industry had been forced to deal with the costs and the risks on its own, it might have developed cheaper, simpler, more reliable plants.

I don't know whether nuclear is the answer or not. It, but I agree with Tierney's primary points. First, nuclear power should be on the table as a potential energy source. Second, government does a poor job of picking winners and losers in the marketplace and energy subisidies are a waste of money, whether they go to nuclear or anything else.