I read an article in the Economist entitled, "Half life," which is obviously about nuclear power. The article focused on how dependent nuclear power's success is on governmental support and public opinion. In France, for instance, the public has come to accept nuclear power as a way of life and a new reactor is scheduled to be built. Electricite de France will be building the new reactor and is planning on covering the reactor's huge cost with its normal revenue. Yet, most utilities cannot manage this financially and the climate in many other nations is not so conducive or receptive to nuclear power. In nearby Germany, for example, the perception of nuclear power changed dramatically after the Chernobyl disaster, and a law was passed forcing the shutdown of Germany's 19 nuclear reactors by 2020. In the U.S., there are many government incentives now for nuclear power, "including insurance against regulatory risk." Yet, how do you win the American public over to nuclear power when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as terrorist threats, are still in many Americans' minds? Personally, I share these concerns over nuclear power's safety, especially in light of terrorist threats, but I do see a few ways that nuclear power could be advocated more effectively in the U.S. than perhaps it has been in the past. The article raises the valid point that nuclear power is cheaper than natural gas and almost as cheap as coal. Putting the radioactive waste products aside (as well as the possibility of leaks from reactors), it generates power in a cleaner fashion than fossil fuels--i.e. it is "carbon free." If we are frantic about stopping global warming, some would argue that we have no excuse to snub nuclear power. Further, uranium comes mostly from stable countries like Canada and Australia, while oil comes from mostly volatile nations. Perhaps we would have less conflicts between nations if the power source was coming from more secure and friendly nations.

I still have many reservations about nuclear power. Yet, articles like this one are important for continuing the nuclear power dialogue. It makes me realize that perhaps we cannot write it off entirely--or at least, not until we have alternative energy sources that can both fill this much of the need for power and limit greenhouse gas emissions.