Following Up on Kristof, Brand

On Saturday, we pointed to a column by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that called for the expanded use of nuclear energy to help combat global warming. Since then, Kristof's coumn has kicked up a lot of dust -- including from the readers of the Times. Here's William Tucker from Brooklyn:

It is so refreshing to see an environmentalist like Nicholas D. Kristof being sensible about nuclear power.

There really isn't any need to fight over these issues. No one wants air pollution. No one wants to fill the air with carbon dioxide. But there isn't any sensible way around coal except to go with nuclear reactors.

Environmentalists have scared themselves to death on this issue. Or they listen to blather about covering whole states with biofuel crops and windmills just so we don't have to build a few nuclear plants.

It's even better than Mr. Kristof says. Once we get a nuclear fleet up, we can start running cars on electricity or hydrogen from electricity. Then we can kiss our oil dependency goodbye as well.

That letter is by no means the only one, but it's still good news to see voters who consider themselves to be environmentally concious being open to the possibility of new nuclear build. I'll be back later today with more from the energy blogs.

UPDATE: The other article that helped spark an earthquake came from counterculture figure Stewart Brand, who wrote in the pages of MIT Technology Review that it was time to give nuclear energy (along with biotechnology) another chance.

Here's Jonathan Adler at the Commons Blog:

Imagine that, a pro-nuke, pro-biotech environmental movement. If it happens, it will be a dramatic change for the better.

In a two-part post over at Grist, Dave Roberts, though skeptical, admits he's trying to keep an open mind (Part I, Part II):

And then there's nuclear power, about which Gristmill readers are currently debating vigorously. I'm deeply ambivalent about the subject, and I will admit up front that I don't know enough about it to make up my mind firmly one way or the other. There are lots and lots of variables involved, some at a time scale so large as to be virtually impossible to contemplate sensibly.

To which we say, Dave, we want to talk, and engage in a productive dialogue about an energy future that includes a broad portfolio of nuclear energy, clean coal, natural gas and renewables when it comes to electrical generation. Global energy demand is rising too steeply for the world to ignore any source of generation in the future, and we're willing to talk about how we can get there.

Check out some other positive comments from Synthstuff, J-San.net, Demos Greenhouse, and Environmental Sociology.

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics