Electrical production needs to be market-driven, not government-directed

United States citizens count on affordable and available electricity production and delivery to their homes and businesses more than any other factor to maintain their quality of life.

It would seem prudent that these electricity customers demand that the market for this most valuable commodity be optimized in their best interests. After all, the customer is king in a free enterprise economy, right?

The trouble is that all electricity markets in this country are monopolies. The most beneficial market for consumers is free enterprise, one in which the government enforces a fair and level playing field for all entrepreneurs. Consumers have allowed their government to migrate this market to look more like a Soviet Union Five-Year Plan instead of a customer-demand-driven competition between different suppliers.

Predictably, the results of this government-supported monopoly seem to resemble the shortages, escalating costs, and brittle prospects of a slave state. Government is in business with the big companies (subsidies), regulations favor monopolistic dictatorship instead of competitive prices, and the consumer is forced to "take what they can get" and "pay whatever is asked" to stay connected to the life-giving river of electricity.

We are on the cusp of blackouts, price hikes, rising demand with no rising production, and the fate of the entire business is entirely in the hands of government agencies (both Federal and State) collaborating with business. We, the co-authors, do not think this is conducive to the American dream.

In such a society, innovation is almost non-existent because there is no incentive to improve. After all, you are forced to buy the service offered or stop using electricity. To these authors, this sounds precariously close to extortion, and we do not like it.

• The good news is that many different small and large companies are trying to compete for the electricity production business.
• The bad news is that they are bowing down to the government in a vain begging posture to be allowed to place their products on the market.

Our analysis has determined that nuclear power offers the best advantage to the buying public. It has proven to be the safest, most compact, most resilient, most flexible, cheapest, and safest form of electricity production.

Direct supply of continuous and uninterruptible electricity to customers is far more efficient and robust while offering the most competitive rates for all consumers.

• The German government forced all its perfectly good reactors to close, resulting in the highest electricity prices and dirtiest air in the European Union. It is considering reversing that mistake with the help of investors who see a vast potential to reactivate nine nuclear power plants for electricity production.
• The Spanish government's influence on the market caused the grid to black out due to the volatility of intermittent wind and solar production.
• California must count on coal-fired imported electricity from Montana to supply its citizens with the bare minimum of power at greatly increased rates.

Even our own national grid suffers from government regulation that has placed the entire system in a very vulnerable and fragile condition. Maybe it is time to consider ignoring government influence (money) and bringing back states' rights to force free enterprise. Clearly, the government is only making things worse with more subsidies, agencies, regulations, spending, and collusion with businesses.

The ironic reality is that the needed innovation is resident in many big and small entrepreneurial companies. Yet, no nuclear reactor design is allowed to escape from the inefficient clutches of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We keep hearing about "reforms" and "efficiencies" being "imminent", yet there are no results, even in an industry that boasts the best industrial safety record in the country (nuclear power).