Sustainable Energy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303966.html?referrer=emailarticle

There has to be some middle ground in the efforts we all make to support an energy future. Nobody wants to pollute. While we have pointed out here that the global alarmists need to be controlled lest they drain more money from world economies that could be used to create jobs and feed the starving, we want a future where energy can be created with less pollution.

We were touched by a video that debuted over the weekend about Peter Burns and the work he is doing at the University of Notre Dame's Energy Frontier Research Center. It is part of the University's "What Would You Fight For?" series: http.//video.nd.edu. Burns has developed an approach to convert nuclear waste into clean energy. Clean energy that won't pollute.

What we are willing to support here is nuclear energy. We think it's time has come and we think we need to encourage its use. As the chart in the Washington Post article we have attached shows, 76% of the electrical supply in France is "nuclear". Here in the U.S., its 19%. While we are building wind energy sources, which we also support, we need to build nuclear plants. While the world has suffered Chernobyl and, closer to home, Three Mile Island, today's technology (and training) is more sophisticated.

It has been 13 years since the last nuclear power plant was built in the U.S. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House shows nuclear energy more than doubling in the U.S. by 2050 if the legislation is made law. Groups like the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund and others have backed off their opposition to "nuclear" because they see it as a "clean" alternative.

Of course, some leading environmental figures like Al Gore remain skeptical of nuclear's promise, largely because of the high cost of building plants and the threat of proliferation. If anything convinces me that my position on this issue is right, it is that Al Gore opposes it. Gore did tell the Washington Post Editorial Board, "I am not anti-nuclear (is that a double negative?), but the cost of the present generation of reactors is nearly prohibitive."

Perhaps more nuclear and less coal?