[ RadSafe ] Fwd: At long last, it's 'nuclear option' time -TEXT

[farbersa at optonline.net]

I've received an email, that some have had trouble viewing the hyperlink  
included with the email I sent to radsafe earlier. In any case, copied  
below is the hyperlink and a text copy of the editorial from the Oregonian.

Stu Farber
Consulting Scientist
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 367-0791 [office]
=================
<url=  
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1118915896235810.xml&coll=7  
>

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1118915896235810.xml&coll=7

------- Forwarded message -------
From: farbersa at optonline.net
At long last, it's 'nuclear option' time
Thursday, June 16, 2005
DAVID REINHARD
"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power
to be an environmentally sound and safe choice. A doubling of nuclear
energy production would make it possible to significantly reduce total
[greenhouse gas] emissions nationwide. In order to create a better
environmental and energy-secure future, the [United States] must once
again renew its leadership in this area."

OK, guess which nuclear-energy champion made the statement above. Vice
President Dick Cheney or a uranium cufflinked lobbyist for the nuclear
industry?

OK, guess again. The pro-nukes manifesto came from Greenpeace founder
Patrick Moore. The head of Greenspirit Strategies testified before
Congress this past April, and he's not the only big-foot environmentalist
who's rethinking nuclear power.

The energy bill now before the Senate offers a chance for further
reconsideration -- and action. It includes provisions that should advance
nuclear power in the next decades: a new test reactor at the Idaho
National Laboratory, an extension of industry-funded liability protection
for nuclear facilities and incentives to jump-start construction of some
advanced-design reactors.

The nuclear industry can point to several advances since the last nuclear
power plant came on line or the Three Mile Island fiasco decades ago.
Existing plants are more efficient and cost-effective, and designs for the
next generation of reactors should make them better and safer still. Never
mind the justifiable federal loan guarantees in the Senate bill.
Standardized construction plans and a streamlined licensing process should
help make nuclear power a more attractive investment.

But what's behind the welcome rethinking by some greenies? Why are they
more open to going nuclear? Answer: their concern about greenhouse gases
and global warming.

Quite simply, nuclear energy produces none of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxide and carbon dioxide that are spewed into the atmosphere when fossil
fuels are burned. It's greenhouse gas-free. Washington state's nuclear
power plant, for example, kept 8,000 tons of sulfur dioxide emissions,
13,500 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 7.6 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide emissions out of the sky in 2004. Forget global warming.
Avoiding these greenhouse gases can help areas where car and industrial
emissions degrade air quality.

Of course, renewable energy -- wind, solar, hydroelectric -- are
emission-free sources, too. But they're not equal to the magnitude of the
greenhouse gas problem. They aren't now; they aren't likely to be in the
future. Wind and solar are a small part of U.S. energy production and have
become smaller in recent years. Hydro power now often runs afoul of
efforts to protect native fish, as we know too well in the Northwest.

Hydrogen is today's hot fuel of the future, but you still have to produce
it, and that takes lots of electricity. This becomes a greenhouse gas
problem if producing the electricity to produce the hydrogen also produces
carbon dioxide. It doesn't become a greenhouse gas problem if the vast
amounts of electricity used in electrolysis come from . . . nuclear power.
Solar and wind power won't suffice -- unless you want to litter whole
states with windmills and solar panels to produce enough hydrogen for all
our cars and trucks. The Idaho National Laboratory project in the Senate
bill is for research, development and construction of an advanced nuclear
co-generation reactor to produce electricity and hydrogen.

Plenty of prominent and garden-variety greenies still oppose nuclear
energy, of course. The easing of environmental hostility to nuclear power
shouldn't be overstated. When Britain's Hugh Montefiore, a longtime
trustee of Friends of the Earth was ready to make a pro-nukes
pronouncement ("I have now come to the conclusion that the solution [to
global warming] is to make more use of nuclear energy"), his colleagues
made him resign. Yet as fears about greenhouse gases and global warming
grow -- and the practical problems of filling the world's energy needs
with non-emission sources become ever more apparent -- today's nuclear
environmentalists may come to be seen as prophets.

Even if they did sound a bit like Dick Cheney or a nuclear-industry
lobbyist.

David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or
davidreinhard at news.oregonian.com.






-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.6/19 - Release Date: 6/16/2005