Lots of unfortunate things happened in the 1970s. Watergate. Gasoline lines. Bell bottoms. Those no-nuke concerts.
Ah, those no-nuke concerts.
Imagine what the world would be like today--imagine what climate forecasts would say today--if the world hadn't become so scared of civilian nuclear energy in the 1970s. In an accident of history that can also be described as great movie PR, "The China Syndrome" was released two weeks before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. And We the People allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked by actors, singers and other Limousine liberals.
If there were a nuclear plant in every bend of the river, not only would our electricity bills be lower (maybe much, much lower) but American energy providers wouldn't be belching so much carbon into the atmosphere.
But maybe, just maybe, the thinking on civilian nuclear power is changing.
This past week the paper said nuclear plant operators "are hoping to nearly double their output over the next three decades." And by using small reactors. According to the AP: "About two dozen U.S. companies are developing advanced reactors, with some that could come on-line by the end of the decade if the technology succeeds and federal regulators approve."
They've been working on these smaller nuclear plants for about a dozen years now. Speaking of a dozen years, it takes about that long to get a traditional nuclear plant approved and built. There's a plant being built in Georgia that is projected to cost $30 billion. More than twice what its investors originally calculated.
But these smaller nuclear plants can be built in a factory. They are much less expensive. And, one would hope, could go on-line a lot faster. As long as government regulators allow them.
And regulated they should be. These are nuclear plants, after all. But they shouldn't be strangled in regulation.
Fortunately, the feds might even understand as much. The Biden administration pledged $6 billion this spring to rescue older traditional plants in an effort to keep carbon emissions from spiking at their closure. The administration should encourage the effort to build these smaller plants. Every little bit would help (the planet).
Of course, there are those who'd warn against.
According to the AP story: "The Union of Concerned Scientists has cautioned that nuclear technology still comes with significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don't, including the danger of accidents or targeted attacks for both the radioactive waste and the reactors, and the unresolved question of how to store hazardous nuclear waste."
Yes, but the Union of Concerned Scientists has been warning the rest of us about this for a dozen years. Archives jog faulty memory, and we found that outfit featured in an editorial in this column from February 2010 in which a scientist among them said, "Nuclear power requires high-level security and expertise to operate safely. It seems like something that should be concentrated rather than distributed."
All scientists--especially nuclear scientists--should be concerned. With all kinds of things. Like the rest of us. But they should also be concerned with carbon pollution and climate change.
Also, most folks are probably acquainted with risks involved with nuclear energy--although we'd remind Gentle Reader than nobody, not a soul, was found to be harmed at Three Mile Island in 1979. In fact, Jimmy Carter--an executive officer of a nuclear submarine in his Navy days--visited the site to show people that it wouldn't make you grow another finger.
And as for radioactive waste at current and future nuclear plants, that problem could be solved. And would have been, if not for Harry Reid. Now that he's left the stage, let's finally take advantage of all that money taxpayers spent on Yucca Mountain.
(NB: The folks at the Union of Concerned Scientists emphasize they aren't necessarily opposed to nuclear power. They're not saying, they're just saying.)
One day, Lord willing and the ocean don't rise, mankind will develop the kind of batteries that will allow us to better store wind and solar power. But until then, we need the ability to turn on the heat, AC or nightlight when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing. The best way to do that, right now, is with nuclear or carbon fuels.
We have a choice. Some of us think it's simple.