New nukes

Here's a heretical thought.

In light of global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels, how about reviving the nation's nuclear program?

Crazy? Not to some. As reported in the New York Times recently, several prominent environmentalists have said the nation should consider nuclear power as a way to combat global warming.

While we're not clear on how this would translate into an energy policy, it's certainly a conversation worth having.

The key question is this: Which presents the greater threat to the planet, the risks associated with nuclear energy or the risks associated with growing carbon emissions and climate change?

Given the developing body of evidence concerning global warming, anything that would lessen our dependence on oil and coal should be explored. That's essentially what Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, said in an article in a recent issue of Technology Review.

"Everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production," he said. But when you add up all of the alternative technologies "it's just a fraction of enough." He concluded that nuclear power is the "only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon-dioxide loading."

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., are trying to use this potential thawing of environmental opposition to nuclear energy to gain support for a bill that would cut the nation's production of heat-trapping gases.

According to the Times, the senators are hoping conservatives will agree to a reduction in carbon emissions "in return for liberal support for a new generation of nuclear power plants ..."

Ten years ago, such a deal would have been considered impossible. But it should be considered now by anyone who is willing to accept that global warming is real - and requires a new world view.