The Return of the Nukes

Frank Tierney writes today in the New York Times about the reemergence of the nuclear power industry in light of all the perceived global warming threats:

The great taboo against nuclear power seems to be over in Washington. This is a mixed blessing.

The subject had been off limits to environmentally correct politicians since the spring of 1979, when the Three Mile Island accident inspired the Woodstock of the antinuke movement. More than 65,000 protesters marched on the Capitol to hear energy experts like Jackson Browne and Benjamin Spock - and, of course, Jane Fonda, an authority because of her role in the "The China Syndrome."

Celebrities and politicians, warning of meltdowns and cancer epidemics, demanded the shutdown of all nuclear plants. Protesters dressed as mushrooms chanted, "Two, four, six, eight, we don't want to radiate." I went to the rally sympathetic to the movement but left unsure of which was scarier, nuclear power or its enemies.

Now some prominent environmentalists are having second thoughts, as Felicity Barringer reported in Sunday's Times. Given the threat of global warming, they say, encouraging new nuclear power plants may be necessary. And Congress is about to take up proposals to reinvigorate the industry.

While he seems to support the idea of nuclear power, he is a NY Times columnist and therefore automatically proposes the wrong solution: more taxes:

If politicians are determined to combat global warming, their best bet is to try something they understand: imposing taxes. A tax on carbon emissions would make investors take into account the risks of global warming. I don't know if it would make them want to build new nuclear power plants, but I trust them to figure it out better than anyone in Washington who claims to see the energy future. And at least they don't dress up as mushrooms.

Setting aside the funding issues, nuclear power is clearly a superior form of energy production than is coal, oil or the many "pie-in-the-sky" proposals such as wind or solar energy. If done right nuclear power can be very efficient and remarkably clean.

I had a lesson in the efficiency of nuclear energy recently when my family toured the retired aircraft carrier Midway in San Diego. The Midway was an oil-fired boat which meant that during normal operations at sea, the ship would have to be refueled every four days or so. Because they had to be ready to move on a moment's notice, they could never let the fuel tanks drop below 60% of capacity. Each refueling took several hours, and with two vessels traveling just a few feet apart, was a dangerous operation.

Our guide pointed out the Abraham Lincoln which was docked across the bay from us. The Lincoln is one of the newest fleet carriers and is nuclear powered. They have to stop for fuel EVERY 22 YEARS. Big difference.

Nuclear power is not only a relatively cheap and efficient means of energy production, but it will also reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It's time to shake off the arbitrary shackles the enviro-wackos have put on us and get back in the nuke business.