The US government hopes that a large number of nuclear plants will be built in the US over the next 20 years to cut the country's need for oil. But GE (NYSE: GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt says they will not be built without incentives from the Feds.

According to the FT, "Immelt said only five to 10 US nuclear power projects were likely to go ahead unless there was a carbon-pricing framework to create incentives for utilities to build more." That may be true, but GE should be quiet about championing aid for building those facilities. GE and Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) have a joint venture to build nuclear plants, and the parties would not want to be seen as sell-serving.

The comments raise a difficult issue. The government and utilities both know that the long-term future of cheap oil looks bad. But building nuclear plants take years, is expensive, and requires passing government safety standards. Over the next decade it may actually be cheaper to continue to use fossil fuels even it the price of oil stays high.

GE will make a lot of money on the move to nuclear fuel, but that does not mean that its call for government help is wrong.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In 1908, a Ford Model-T traveled 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline. In an attempt to return to those halcyon days, the U.S. voted late Thursday night to pass a new energy bill that sets lofty CAFE goals for the American car fleet.

Along with mandating a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 and energy-efficient appliances and lights, the measure will require the fuel industry to raise ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Slightly less than 5 billion gallons were produced in 2006.

The first engine to use ethanol as a fuel was built in 1826.

In recognition of the damage to the nation's grain crop prices that increased ethanol production would wreak if it were based on corn, the measure mandates that most of that increase come from cellulose (think wood pulp).

The auto industry, in an embarrassing admission of its continuing inability to forecast consumer demand (if you remember its attitude about the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1960's, you know what I mean), was prepared to filibuster the bill, but the Senate was able to garner enough votes to override. However, the Republicans were able to use this lever to pry out of the bill language that would have taxed the petroleum industry to create a fund a program promoting fuel efficiency. They also were successful in removing a requirement that 15% of the nation's electricity be generated via windmills, solar power and the like.

President Bush's approval on the bill is still in question, though, as he opposes many of the measures including one allowing the government to punish companies found guilty of price-gouging.

In many arenas, the Republican and Democratic parties have little to distinguish between them, but this bill sharply differentiates their approach to the energy problem. This compromise seems to me seems, a strong vote for more of the same policies that have maintained the status quo for generations.