Nuclear Vision: Are reactors the answer to energy, enviro fears?

Dallas Morning News | Editorial:

“The nuclear energy debate in the United States used to be summarized in two words: No nukes. But now other threats seem far more menacing: global warming, dangerous car and industry emissions, and skyrocketing energy prices resulting from geopolitical unrest.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

I used to come down on the side of "no nukes". My concern was nuclear waste. This deadly residue of our demand for energy today will remain harmful to life on earth for thousands of years in the future. I consider this to be an inexcusable crime of making our children and grandchildren (and great-grandchildren for untold generations) pay for our selfish energy demands today. I still believe this.

Why am I slowly coming around to support nuclear power? Because the alternative, fossil fuel-burning power plants, itself imposes a burden on future generations. Global warming is real. Human activity is a significant cause of global warming. Climate change threatens our environment and our livelihoods for centuries, perhaps millennia, to come.

So I now see nuclear power as the lesser of two evils. We still need to do more to develop safer waste storage sites. We still need to do more to protect nuclear fuel from falling into the hands of terrorists. We still need to do more to help ensure public safety as reactors age and/or maintenance is neglected. After all, money spent on public safety is too often a target of greedy tax cutters.

When faced with only unpleasant choices, one must hold one's nose and choose one. That's what I'm doing when I endorse nuclear power. And praying that our descendents will understand and not condemn us for our selfishness.