Why Not Go Nuclear?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Filed under: Science & Technology, Government & Politics
|
The Bush Administration wants to push “energy independence.” Its silence on nuclear power is deafening.
President Bush’s State of the Union address weighed in heavily on the issue of finding alternative sources of energy for the United States. Developing alternative energy sources is an important policy goal and the U.S. would benefit from energy diversification. But while the President talked a fair amount about biodiesel fuels, ethanol production and updating fuel economy standards—in addition to expanding domestic oil production—he only mentioned nuclear power as an alternative energy source in a single throwaway line.
The benefits of nuclear power have converted environmentalists who were formerly hostile to any policy relying on nuclear energy as an alternative resource. People like Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, have renounced their anti-nuclear positions and now argue that nuclear power is one of the safest, most affordable, most environmentally sensitive sources of energy around. Additionally, as Moore points out, nuclear energy is more reliable than wind and solar energy, and the problems of nuclear waste and reactors as targets for terrorism—while meriting the most stringent security procedures in response—have been dramatically overstated. Maybe the kinds of arguments Moore makes are responsible for the decision of the British government’s chief scientific advisor to call for the revival of the nuclear energy industry in Britain in order to address an impending energy crisis and the threat of global warming. Maybe they are responsible for the fact that France has maintained a longstanding commitment to use nuclear power as a major source. Over three-quarters of France’s energy needs are met by nuclear power, allowing the country to be a major energy exporter and to pay near rock-bottom prices for its energy needs. The nuclear reactors have thus far been a safe, pollution-reducing option for France, with no “China Syndrome” situations or terrorist sabotage. The public has a jaded view of nuclear power as an alternative energy source. What about the alternative energy sources the President’s State of the Union address did concentrate on? They aren’t promising. Columnist Charles Krauthammer points out that ethanol and biofuels won’t keep up with gasoline demand and relying on them will only serve to create yet another gigantic government subsidy—one whose primary effect will be to reward special interests while doing nothing to resolve the policy concerns President Bush discussed in his speech. Reliance on ethanol dramatically increases the price of corn, a price increase that is passed on to consumers and hits hardest in the Third World. Moreover, ethanol is less energy-dense than oil—and because it cannot be pipelined, it must be produced at smaller, more local facilities that lack the returns to scale enjoyed by large refineries. Let’s hope that President Bush decides to throw more support to nuclear power. If he and the Congress are serious about weaning America from its reliance on oil, the nuclear energy option is one that should replace ethanol and biofuels as the country’s alternative energy resource. Ethanol subsidies and reliance on biofuels only help a select few special interests. But the public interest demands a better alternative energy policy.
Pejman Yousefzadeh is an attorney living in Illinois. He blogs at A Chequer-board of Nights and Days, and Red State.
Image credit: "Nuclear power thriving in England" by Flickr user redjar |



