This country's ambivalence to nuclear power has become a national security issue -- and may threaten American pre-eminence in coming decades.
America's competitors are forging ahead with nuclear power while we do next to nothing. According to the Heritage Foundation, while there have been no new commercial reactors in the United States since the 1970s, China is planning 85 of them and Russia has 35 on the drawing board.
America's intransigence also means that the infrastructure and skilled and educated work force necessary to engineer and build nuclear power plants are also running behind the competition.
To keep up in the increasingly competitive race to be energy independent, America must be educating young scientists and engineers at a much higher rate now.
Most of all, the federal government must get out of the way and allow the private sector to produce the clean and abundant energy nuclear power can provide a nation of gadget-happy consumers.
And oh, by the way, if Congress thinks it can clean the air as much as it wants to without nuclear, it's wrong. In fact, Congress' own goals for cutting carbon emissions will depend on nuclear -- up to 200 new reactors, notes the Heritage Foundation.
"To deny the United States access to nuclear technology while mandating (carbon dioxide) caps is hypocritical and indefensible," writes Jack Spencer, research fellow in nuclear energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
"Federal policy has crippled the market," adds Heritage Foundation President Edwin J. Feulner.
That, in turn, will cripple America.
Comments
The GreenParty and the EPA have been crippling the energy source for this country for over thirty years. The move was so subtle that most of the country couldn't (or wouldn't) see what was happening. The current "oil crisis" is having the effect of curing a lot of blindness. This country needs to drill off shore, build nuclear generating plants and start producing some of the other alternative energy sources the oil cartels have been buying (to keep them off of the open market).
Again, we built the Hanford reactors, the first in the world, in a year or so during WW II. No group of trained 'nuclear engineers', no existing designs. All this by the duPont Engineering Department augmented by newly-hired experts from various sources. The Hanford Reactors operated faultlessly, without any injury to the public, for some fifty years until they had completed their mission. Then in the 1950's the same group built the SRP reactors, each in a year after about a year to design the new D2O concept, and the five SRP reactors operated faultlessly for decades until their mission was completed. WE CAN BUILD SAFE REACTORS IN A YEAR. DELAYS BEYOND A YEAR ARE POLITICAL AND REGULATORY NOT TECHNICAL!
Western Europe depends on nuclear power and have no prblems with it. The econuts have controlled the DIMs in Congress for decades in opposing building new nuclear power plants. Time for them to either give us authority to pursue nuclear energy, drill our own oil, and fund research in alternative energy sources or get booted in November.
Bush put his own people into the EPA so you cannot think it is one party or the other holding things back. Blaming environmentalists is just stupid. They have no real authority. That is like saying PETA has control over public policy. Their voice makes no real difference. The power companies who want to drive up prices have the true control. They are the puppet masters.
Yes, and Bush is pulling puppetmasters strings! Don't think for one moment the investments he made are for those large corporations, cause when he retires, he still gets richer and laughs at us cause we still pay for his retirement after he is gone.
imdstuff, Bush nor his appointees cannot set aside legislation. He has lifted the executive ban on dilling ban on drilling signed by BJ Cliton , but the DIMwits in Congress refuse to do so or even debate it. Like other on here, you need to take a course in US Government 101 as you obviously missed civics in school. DE2, you are dumb as a rock. Bush can not invest in anything while in office. His 07 tax retur reported a $6M loss in income. Ya' think he laughs about tthat?
Jack, Yes, Bush can invest while still in office. You seem to think I am dumb, and to you, I am, but smart enough to know that even a loss is a tax write off that can account for a rebate to most of that back. Yes, I think he laughs all the way to the bank! Seems like you didn't bother taking an accounting class either there JACK!
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
