William Atkins
Saturday, 28 March 2009 20:40
Science -
Energy
Page 3 of 4
The Time article “
Three Mile Island at 30: Nuclear Power's Pitfalls” states,
“… because nuclear reactors produce no carbon emissions. If we got 80% of our electricity from nukes today, as France does, we'd emit nearly a third less carbon. It would be the greenhouse-gas equivalent of taking all our cars off the road.”
It goes on to say,
“And thanks to the climate crisis and a 30-year stretch without serious accidents in the U.S., no-nukes sentiment has faded; a Gallup poll this month found that 59% of Americans now support atomic power.”
The ABC News article “
30 Years After Three Mile Island: Nuclear 'Renaissance'?” says similar things to the WSJ and Time articles--with all three saying most of the resistance to nuclear power is not from people, as earlier, but in the increased costs associated with starting a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear power is not perfect but it is much safer than it used to be and offers an alternative to petroleum products and other dirty burning fuels.
Until we come up with better alternatives, nuclear power is likely to be one of those alternatives, along with wind, solar, geothermal, and others.
None, in and of itself, will be the entire solution to our energy mess and potential global climate change mess—along with the energy/global climate change mess seen around the world.
The best policy that the United States can implement—and any other country for that matter—is to make sure that all of these energy-producing industries are as safe as possible, with strict federal and state regulations enforced daily.
We have a strong tendency to make rules and regulations and then ignore them after a few years of care-free, accident-free operations.
Page four concludes with comments from the author.
