NY Times: Environmental Movement Reconsidering Nuclear Energy

The big news over the weekend was that the New York Times finally noticed something that we've been telling you for a couple of weeks -- that a number of environmentalists are breaking from the pack and endorsing nuclear energy as a way to provide new power generation that doesn't produce greenhouse gas emissions:

Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming. Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups.

Reactions from around the Blogosphere -- Instapundit:

If you want to have a technological civilization, and not emit C02, nuclear power is pretty much the only way to go at the moment.

Right On The Left Coast is astonished that he agrees with the New York Times. Wilson Fu isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth. PrebleNY has some other thoughts, and so does the Commons Blog.

Here's Powerpundit:

I'm on board with the pro-nuclear attitude of some of these environmental groups, and am pleased that they are finally showing up - albeit tardily - to the nuclear party. We can and should resume the use of nuclear power as an alternative to current energy sources. However, my motivation is not because of the alleged problem of global warming. We must resume the use of nuclear energy because we need a new source of power. Period.

Why do we need a new source of power? Our President and CEO, Skip Bowman, laid out the case a couple of weeks ago in San Antonio in a speech to the nuclear fuel industry:

The numbers also tell us that companies are not investing in new, cleaner, more efficient generating capacity. Nearly 200,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity in the United States is 30 to 40 years old. Approximately 100,000 megawatts is 40 to 50 years old. Together, these aging assets represent roughly one-third of our 900,000 megawatts of installed capacity.

So, in essence, environmentalists who continue to resist the expansion of nuclear energy, would force a choice on us -- to meet new electricity demand with old technologies that emit greenhouse gases and particulate matter, or shut off the lights. That's not a choice most people want forced on them.

The fact is, that electricity demand will rise so rapidly over the coming decades, that we're going to need to rely on every source of clean energy imaginable -- that means renewables, clean coal and nuclear. And when you combine that with the need to replace aging energy infrastructure, you can't afford to take any option off the table.

POSTSCRIPT: It would be remiss not to mention that one of the first prominent environmentalists to speak up in favor of expanded use of nuclear energy, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, died on Saturday. He was 85. Our condolences to his family and friends.

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