Global warming and nuclear power.

A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study on the future of nuclear power argues that nuclear power should be maintained as an energy option because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to future electricity supply.* Unfortunately, the study also observes, based on a survey of adults in the United States, that those who are very concerned about global warming are no more likely to support nuclear power than those who are not. Other evidence suggests that the responses in Europe would not be very different. As a result, the MIT authors conclude that public education may be needed to broaden understanding of the links among global warming, fossil fuel usage, and the need for low-carbon energy sources. For those who are concerned about our future climate, the survey should be disturbing. A realistic response to global warming should involve harnessing a variety of energy options: increased use of renewable energy sources, seques-tration of carbon at fossil-fuel plants, enhanced efficiency in energy generation and use, and increased reliance on nuclear power. Because public misunderstanding is likely to manifest itself in the political arena, greater appreciation of the relation between nuclear power and emissions reduction may be essential if use of the nuclear option is to be significantly expanded. Unfortunately, two institutions that might be expected to explain the facts are largely silent on this issue. Environmental groups include a large and dedicated antinuclear constituency, so even environmentalists who might give nuclear a second look might hesitate to embrace that view publicly. The nuclear industry is reluctant to advance the case because generating companies also rely on fossil-fuel plants (primarily using carbon-intensive coal) for electricity production. This sector thus has a strong disincentive to use global warming as a justification for nuclear power because of the implication of that argument for other components of the companies' supply portfolios. As for the Bush administration, it has aggressively supported nuclear power but has carefully avoided emphasizing the link between nuclear power and the global climate's response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. This no doubt reflects the hesitancy that has characterized the ad-ministration's approach to the global warming issue. We thus confront a paradoxical situation. Those who should be the strongest advocates of nuclear power—environmentalists, governmental policy-makers concerned about global warming, and generating companies with an economic stake in nuclear's future—are unable or unwilling …