• News
• Sports
• Opinion
• A&E
• Multimedia
• Features
• Obituaries
• Blogs

  Home Page » Opinion » Editorial » Udall And Nukes

Udall and nukes

Senator deserves credit for opening discussion

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Thursday that the country should build more nuclear power plants. That was widely seen as a conversion, but it may be Udall's lifelong concern for the environment simply has brought him to see nuclear power as the least bad realistic alternative.

In any case, the senator deserves credit for speaking out on the subject. His stature as a friend of the environment - and his family name - make his statement newsworthy and unavoidable. That also makes it valuable.

Nuclear power has too much potential to continue to ignore it. And that could be especially true if it is developed in the context of environmentally beneficial trade-offs.

The principal advantage to nuclear power is it produces none of the greenhouse gases connected with climate change. Nor does it produce the smoke, ash and visible pollution associated with coal-fired power plants.

But no energy source is without drawbacks. With nuclear power there are three - the still unresolved issue of what to do with nuclear waste, the dangers and environmental issues surrounding mining uranium and politics.

Safety is not a concern. The most serious incident related to nuclear power plants in this country was the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. But numerous studies by government agencies and private groups found, in the words of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment." In addition, the U.S. Navy has been operating scores of nuclear power plants for decades. Its safety record has been spotless - despite the loss of two nuclear-powered submarines to nonreactor-related causes.

Whether mining can be done safely is an issue. So is the question of nuclear waste. But those may be solvable if the political will is found.

That might be the real significance of Udall's "conversion." If an environmentalist's endorsement of nuclear power is surprising, add this: Udall also is a successful politician. Why touch a toxic issue - unless maybe it is not as touchy as we thought?

Consider some possibilities. What if nuclear power plants were developed only if their acceptance were tied not only to the reduction of greenhouse gases inherent in the technology, but also to some other environmental benefit?

Would residents of Southwest Colorado buy off on a nuclear power plant in the Four Corners if it meant not only stopping the proposed Desert Rock power plant, but also the removal of existing coal-fired plants? Would greens in the Pacific Northwest accept a nuke or two if it meant the end of some dams and salmon could once again swim free?

What would California residents want in exchange for some more nuclear power plants? A statewide network of "refueling" stations for plug-in hybrids? A total end to offshore drilling?

It could be that nuclear power, in addition to being free of greenhouse gases, offers environmentalists the leverage they need to move forward with other clean-energy and conservation efforts. It could conceivably end the burning of coal.

Moreover, they might find political allies in unexpected places. Nuclear power is homegrown, and while it cannot replace imported oil. there are applications where it could help. That might appeal to those who see energy primarily as a national-security issue.

T. Boone Pickens' idea to use wind-generated electricity to free natural gas for use in powering fleet vehicles is one example. Nuclear-generated electricity could do the same.

Whether the problems with nuclear power can be resolved remains to be seen. But however that works out, Udall deserves credit for recognizing the promise of nuclear power and bringing it back into the discussion.