The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Nation's Pulse
Print Email

The Nation's Pulse

The Nuclear Renaissance Begins

(Page 2 of 2)

Nuclear reactors are indeed expensive to construct. NRG is projecting $3 to $5 billion with cost overruns likely. But coal plants currently cost $1 billion and that's without the least effort at controlling carbon emissions. If "carbon sequestration" -- essentially digging a hole a few miles deep and pumping the exhaust into it -- becomes a reality, coal plants will become equally if not more expensive. (The technology is completely unproven anyway.) In any case, when did environmental groups become so frugal about protecting the environment?

Energy conservation, on the other hand, has great potential that is just being fathomed. Last May, Progress Energy of North Carolina announced it would delay the projected opening of two proposed reactors from 2016 to 2018 because of more success than anticipated in conservation efforts. Yet even the best conservation scenarios only stabilize current consumption. (California has been able to accomplish this.) That still leaves us producing for 50 percent of our electricity with coal -- a billion tons a year that put three billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases and 20 percent of the world's. "When it comes to providing our baseload electricity, the only choice is between coal and nuclear," says David Crane, of NRG. "You simply can't be serious about global warming and against nuclear power."

Finally, the argument that nuclear is not completely carbon-free is puerile. Nothing is completely carbon-free, not windmills, not solar collectors, not even conservation devices. All involve capital investment that consumes energy. If the uranium enrichment plant in Portsmouth, Ohio, consumes the output of two large, polluting coal plants (a favorite environmental citation), then the solution is to replace those coal plants with nuclear reactors.

NRG's courageous proposal is the opening gong for what should be the most passionate debate of the rest of the decade -- can nuclear power prevent global warming? As Al Gore would say, the fate of the planet may depend on it.

Page:   12

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Transportation, Environment, Global Warming, NATO, Energy, Oil

William Tucker is most recently the author of the new book Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey (Bartleby Press).

Comments

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

Why Does Alyssa Milano Hate Me?

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

In Sum, IPCC Discredited

Paul Chesser

* * * *

That Dangerous Radical . . . Marvin Olasky?

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

Forget the Committees

Greg Scandlen

* * * *

Moment of Truth

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

No Sales Days in the Afghan War

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Bureaucrats With Badges

Mark Hyman

* * * *

Obama in Wonderland

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

A Writer Speaks

William Tucker

* * * *

What Has Changed?

Robert P. Kirchhoefer

* * * *

High Stakes

Manon McKinnon

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT