More no-nukes

Didn’t they learn anything?

Some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s. Unfortunately.

Platform shoes. Disco music. Nixon-Ford-Carter administrations.

Ah, it wasn’t all bad. Everybody had a newspaper subscription or two. Baseball was still the national pastime. And if you were to filter out the disco, the radio played some great stuff.

We also remember the No Nukes movement/concerts/mistake.

It may have been the original NIMBY worry. For some reason, people were scared to death of nuclear energy in the 1970s—even the good kind that kept the lights on and AC going. But in certain quarters, “nuclear” always meant either bombs or three-headed fishes. And—in what can only be described as brilliant film marketing—the Three Mile Island accident happened two weeks after “The China Syndrome” appeared in American theaters.

Lest we forget, the accident at Three Mile Island didn’t hurt anybody that science knows about today. The president of the United States—a former nuclear engineer and fixer—appeared at the Pennsylvania nuclear site to show the nation that all the breathless concern on the 5 p.m. news was a bit over-blown. But at that time, who wanted to believe Jimmy Carter?

It was easier to believe Jackson Browne and Jane Fonda. Because aren’t singers and actors the ones to turn to when trying to understand the complexities of a nuclear accident?

Now we can look back at the 1970s and declare the No Nukes movement completely wrong and bad for the environment. Some of its prophets might be honest enough to admit such today. If the building of nuclear plants hadn’t come to a screeching halt in the United States back then, how much better would things be? Such as pollution? Climate change? Your monthly energy bill?

With Red China continuing to choke the world with coal plants, perhaps climate change would still be melting the polar caps, but the air in your neighborhood might be better. And your bills lower.

But even after all the evidence that nuclear energy is the most reliable form of clean electricity, there is still a No Nukes movement in a few spots in the world. They pronounced themselves Not Dead Yet last week.

More than 30 countries from around the globe sent envoys to a Nuclear Energy Summit in Brussels last week. Including the United States. And Red China. And the other usual suspects among nations.

They pledged to “unlock the potential” of nuclear energy, keep nuclear plants open for longer than their life expectancies predicted, and build new ones, with more advanced reactors.

This would be something. The federal government in this country says the average age of a nuclear power plant is 42 years old. Take out a couple of plants in Georgia and Tennessee, and you’d have to go back decades to find the newest one built in America.

Imagine the air, and the climate, if we’d been able to build nuclear power plants (perhaps smaller ones) at each bend in the river all these years. Imagine your light bill!

“Without the support of nuclear power, we have no chance to reach our climate targets on time,” the executive director of the International Energy Agency told the press in Brussels. “Renewables will play the major role in terms of electricity, especially solar supported by wind and hydropower. But we also need nuclear power, especially in those countries where we don’t have major renewable potential.”

How much is solar going to help Finland during winter? How much is hydro going to help desert countries?

And in a world in which you couldn’t get the diplomats of a dozen countries to agree on what to have for lunch, 34 nations signed off on increasing nuclear energy. (Their citizens should make sure they follow up on those promises.)

Of course, the opposition was heard from. Opposition from the hard-right and the climate change deniers?

No.

This opposition comes from the hard left. Environmental groups made the trip to Brussels to demonstrate outside the summit. They pointed to the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents as proof that nuclear energy isn’t the future.

They said that nuclear energy plants are too expensive. And take too long to build. Among other complaints.

From the person representing Greenpeace, which seems less and less Green these days: “Nuclear, all the evidence shows, is too slow to build. It’s too expensive. Much more expensive than renewables. The government must focus on developing renewable energy, energy savings, the real solutions that work for people like home insulation, public transport—not nuclear energy fairy tales.”

Speaking of fairy tales, all the evidence shows that getting Americans to keep their cars parked at home and use more public transportation has been a fantasy for decades. And as far as the speed it takes to build nuclear plants, well, no argument there. Which is why we should’ve been building them for years. So let’s get started on more today.

Nuclear is reliable. And doesn’t cough up carbon like coal.

Some folks would make the perfect the enemy of the good. But it turns out 34 nations have found a better approach.

Let’s hope those nations keep their promises. Which would also make news.