print logo
RSS FEED

AMERICAN.COM

The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Why Not Go Nuclear?

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

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.

nuclear power thriving in England by Flickr user redjarThis is too bad. The public—thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and real events like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl—has a jaded view of nuclear power as an alternative energy source. But we’ve come a long way since Three Mile Island (in which there was neither death nor injury and the core reactor at the power plant contained the radiation successfully), our technology is light years ahead of the kind used at Chernobyl, and The China Syndrome was just a movie. In real life, nuclear power has the potential to fulfill our energy needs in inexpensive fashion. What’s more, nuclear energy is clean energy and should appeal to those concerned about global warming and pollution.

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.

 

Image credit: "Nuclear power thriving in England" by Flickr user redjar


Most Viewed Articles

The Quiet Death of the Kyoto Protocol By Samuel Thernstrom 11/05/2009
Reading the climate news in recent weeks, one might start to wonder who won the last election.
Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? By Jason Richwine 10/21/2009
What if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change ...
Not Your Grandfather's (or Keynes’s) Economy By Arnold Kling 11/07/2009
The complexity of today's economy means that old-fashioned Keynesian policies will not restore full ...
How Prosperous Are We? By Roger Bate 11/03/2009
The Legatum Institute's Prosperity Index goes a long way toward addressing shortcomings in other ...
Hitting the Sick in the Wallet By Alex M. Brill 11/06/2009
Taxes and other provisions in the current healthcare reform legislation will inflict the sick and ...