A few weeks ago, Energy Secretary Steven Chu surprised a National Public Radio interviewer with an unequivocal endorsement of nuclear power. In answer to a question about his choice of living near a coal-fired or a nuclear-powered plant where electricity is generated, he responded, “If you look at the difference between a coal plant down the river and a nuclear power plant, personally I’d rather be living near a nuclear power plant. There’s less of the pollution we know about that is dangerous. Nuclear power has a record in the United States that is very, very good.”

This isn’t supposed to be a position taken by a high government official. His answer prompted interviewer Steve Inskeep to tease him about possible neighbors who might not like the idea of living near such a power plant. Undeterred, he added to his non-politically correct stance by expressing the further belief that storage of nuclear waste is “less an issue.”

When nominated for Energy Secretary, Dr. Chu expressed a firm commitment to ending our nation’s addiction to foreign oil. How serious such a commitment is needed can be gauged from a few unimpeachable facts.

When informed that our nation was importing 30 percent of the oil we were using, President Jimmy Carter declared the “moral equivalent of war” to deal with the situation. (Use of the Carter phrase quickly went the way of the dodo bird when its initials were discovered to be MEOW.) But the Carter-led war began, and one of its early “victories” saw the creation of the federal Department of Energy. Thirty years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the United States is importing 60 percent of our oil. And the Department of Energy continues to impede the use of the safest, cleanest, cheapest and most efficient method of generating electricity — nuclear power.

Anti-nuclear protestors were already a political nuisance in early 1979 when an accident in central Pennsylvania occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station. No one died; no one was hurt at the site; and within a few days, touring the inside of the plant could have been safely undertaken by anyone. What happened at Three Mile Island demonstrated how safe nuclear power truly is. But not only was the plant shut down, its next door twin, where no accident had occurred, was also shut down. Nuclear power was immediately and intensely awarded an uncalled-for black eye by hysterical media experts and the nation’s leftist agitators who have always preferred shutting down our nation.

A few weeks after the March 28 accident, Dresser Industries paid for a remarkable two-page spread in the Wall Street Journal featuring an eye-catching quotation from noted physicist Dr. Edward Teller. In huge lettering, it stated, “I was the only victim of Three Mile Island.” Indeed, Dr. Teller was. He explained that, while working 20 hours per day to counter “the propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda and their ilk are spewing … I suffered a heart attack.” He contended that nuclear power is a major part of solving the worldwide energy problem, a problem he labeled “the greatest present-day threat to the prosperity and survival of nations.”

Generating electricity from the atom’s energy is an American invention. But less than 20 percent of the electricity we consume is produced this way. Contrast that with France, where nuclear power generates 76 percent of the nation’s electricity. Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Japan also employ this marvelous invention more than does our nation. South Korea and China have ambitious plans to follow the trend. But the United States remains tied down by bureaucratic impediments and a fright-peddling anti-nuclear minority.

The following facts need airing. Studies show that pollutants from burning coal and oil cause premature deaths. Evidence demonstrates that hundreds of birds fall victim to wind farms each year. More eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the famous Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska’s coasts. It is physically impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode like an atomic bomb. Moreover, unlike coal-fired plants, which have smokestacks emitting pollutants into the atmosphere, nuclear power plants (which have cooling towers that emit water vapor) keep the waste contained within the plant itself. And there is relatively little waste because relatively little uranium is used, compared to other fuels, for the amount of energy produced. And nuclear waste disposal is a political problem, not a problem for science.

After 50 years of using this technology, it can be said without hesitation that nuclear power is far safer than fossil-fuel-fired plants in every conceivable way: accidents, environmental damage, health effects, long-term risk, you name it. So, like a breath of fresh air, we welcome the assessment of Dr. Steven Chu and hope that his sensible and scientifically reasonable attitude can triumph before America’s lights go out — politically and in every other way.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Jfarmer9 said:

	... There is defiantly a trend among pro nuclear supporters. Just like Dr. Chu they all seem to be very intelligent.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009
Votes: +4

Flu-Bird said:

	lets go nucular Lets give a change for nucular energy and tell HANOI JANE and the eco-wackos from GREENPEACE and those jerks from THE CLAMSHELL ALLIANCE to GO STICK THEIR HEADS IN A DONKEYS BACKSIDE
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009
Votes: +3

Steve Michaelson said:

Nuclear waste is DEFINITELY an issue! Despite Chu's claim that "storage of nuclear waste is less an issue," a plan for the safe long-term storage of spent fuel is essential. No nuclear power plants can be built without a method to dispose or store the nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is that plan. It's curious that Dr. Chu supported the Yucca Mountain project before Harry Reid and Obama got their hands on him. Nuclear power is the only logical way to get the fossil-fuel monkey off the backs of the American people.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009
Votes: +0

caerbannog said:

Nuclear waste is a serious problem, but... ...it's a far more manageable problem than out-of-control CO2 emissions. A careful investigation of the impact of CO2 spikes on the Earth's climate (i.e. the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or even worse, the Permian/Triassic extinction) will show that our grandchildren would be better off with nuclear waste in open pits than with an atmosphere loaded with CO2. It will take time (probably several decades) to ramp up nuclear power production (especially the most-promising "4th-generation" nuclear technology), so in the interim, we'll need to push hard to develop wind, solar, and energy efficiency technology. But the bottom line is, we need to get CO2 emissions under control by any means necessary, and ASAP. And we don't have the luxury of being picky about our options (even if it means dealing with some additional background radiation or ocean views cluttered with wind turbines). It should also be noted that James Hansen (one of the world's top climatologists in terms of the number of papers published and the number of citations) favors nuclear power.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

caerbannog said:

To Steve Michaelson Secretary Chu's position on Yucca Mountain is largely based on his support of "4th-generation" nuclear technology. The nuclear waste that would be stored in Yucca Mountain actually contains 99 percent of the energy that is contained the original enriched uranium that powers today's nuke plants. 4th-generation nuke plants can use that waste as fuel and basically "burn it all up". What Secretary Chu would like to do is take that nuclear waste and use it as fuel for new-generation nuke plants instead of throwing it away in the Yucca Mountain repository. The nuclear waste parked in today's nuclear power plants could provide all the electricity the USA needs for centuries if it is used as fuel in these 4th-generation "Integrated Fast Reactors". Dr Chu recognizes the value of the tremendous energy potential in what we now consider to be "radioactive waste" and he'd rather put it to good use instead of throwing at away at Yucca Mountain. For obvious reasons, Dr. Chu is being very (ahem) "diplomatic" about his long-term plans here....

report abuse vote down vote up

September 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

JJ Suprise said:

To Caerbannog Sorry sir, But while I agree with your assessment on nuclear power, you are dead wrong about the issue of CO2 being a problem. It is a trace gas that is absolutely essential for life on this planet and we need more of it in our atmosphere, not less. The only reason it is being called a problem by the likes of James Hansen, is so cooks like him can bring our society to its knees. JJ Suprise Sandy, Utah

report abuse vote down vote up

October 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +0