There is an interesting editorial debate going on the USA Today web site. The pro-nuclear view, posted on August 14, 2008 and apparently a product of the editorial board for the newspaper includes the following useful comments:
It’s not that nothing could go wrong here, but the safety and security risks seem less ominous and more manageable than opponents of nuclear power make them out to be. The nation’s nuclear plants have worked without a serious accident for almost 30 years, since the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania nearly killed the industry but spurred changes in the way plants are designed and run.
Now nuclear is getting a new look — utilities have submitted 11 applications for 18 new reactors, though no company has committed to building yet — and for good reason. Nuclear power, which already produces about 20% of the nation’s electricity at 104 plants, offers potentially enormous amounts of 24/7 energy at a time when demand is rising. A coming shift to plug-in hybrids and electric cars will only increase the need. Nuclear also offers major help in reducing global warming because, unlike coal-burning plants, atomic power emits little or no greenhouse gases.
Go over and participate. Once I get back from my morning bike ride, I intend to have something to say about the opposing view written by two of the usual suspects, Edwin Lyman and David Lochbaum.