New Nuclear Plants Of America: Open Door For Other Country

The energy demands of the world are continuouslygeneration does, of course, present its own set of
increasing. Experts are worried about the future ofenvironmental concerns".
power generation because there are not enoughDespite such efforts, two fundamental questions
supplies of coal, water and gas to fulfill the needs ofwhich are central to the whole debate about nuclear
mankind in the long term future. Alternative sourcespower and global warming remained unanswered.
of energy such as nuclear energy are beingThese were, "Does nuclear power contribute to
developed. Nuclear energy has several advantagescarbon dioxide emissions?" and "Can nuclear power
over other sources of energy because it is notprovide a realistic long-term solution to global
limited by space or location.warming.Mr Obama said they were needed to meet
As the name itself suggests, a nuclear power plant isfuture energy needs and reduce dependence on
a facility where nuclear energy is harnessed toforeign oil. There has been no new nuclear power
generated electricity. For those of us whoplants started in the US since the 1979 accident at
haven’t heard about this term, it may seem likeThree Mile Island. President Obama called the
a new concept since we usually hear of atomic andprogrammed "only the beginning" of efforts to
hydrogen bombs which use nuclear energy for largedevelop "safe, clean," energy efficient technologies.
scale destruction. But the same power is used forHe called for comprehensive energy legislation which
constructive purposes in nuclear power plants. Thisassigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels,
gives an edge to nuclear power plants overgiving utility companies more incentive to turn to
conventional sources like coal or gas because itcleaner nuclear fuel.
means freedom from geographical factors andBut I think that after announcing the two new
parameters. Furthermore since the amount of fuelnuclear plants in America, will create the confusion
required is much less as compared to conventionalabout some countries that want to nuclear power
sources of power generation, there is no need toenhancement in their countries will be much
have extensive storage facilities and transportationinterested to marketing the nuclear material and
networks for the same amount of power generated.equipments.President Barack Obama insists that the
Speaking on BBC television a year ago the thenU.S. mission in Afghanistan is about "making sure that
Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholasal Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S.
Ridley, stated that, "There is absolutely no doubtinterests and our allies" or "project violence against"
that if you want to arrest the Greenhouse EffectAmerican citizens. The reasoning is that if the Taliban
you should concentrate on a massive increase inwin in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to
nuclear generating capacity. Nuclear power stationsset up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the
give out no sulphur and carbon dioxide, so they arepresident puts it, Afghanistan would "again be a base
the cleanest form of power generation". Despitefor terrorists who want to kill as many of our people
subsequent qualifications to these views, it is obviousas they possibly can." This argument is constantly
that Mr. Ridley was acting as the stalking horse for arepeated but rarely examined; given the costs and
Prime Minister and a Government that clearly favourrisks associated with the Obama administration’s
nuclear power. Those responsible for the publicplans for the region.
relations campaigns of the nuclear and relatedIt is time such statements be given the scrutiny they
industries have taken a more subtle, yet no lessdeserve. Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright's
emotive approach.book The Looming Tower, make clear that the
Faced with a widening gulf between image and realityTaliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s
over nuclear economics, safety, radiation hazards,and felt betrayed when the terrorist group
nuclear weapons proliferation, decommissioning andrepeatedly violated agreements to refrain from
waste disposal; the greenhouse effect and globalissuing inflammatory statements and fomenting
warming has provided a welcome lifeline forviolence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11
beleaguered public relations staff. In expensiveattacks -- which the Taliban had nothing to do with --
double-spread advertisements, British Nuclear Fuels picled to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given
proclaims, "The Greenhouse Effect. We have thethe Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the
power to prevent it" and nuclear power is portrayed"AfPak" region, if they came to power again now,
as "a source of clean energy for the future". Mindfulthey would be highly unlikely to host provocative
of rules governing factual content in advertising andterrorist groups whose actions could lead to another
wary of an audience that has become betteroutside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able
informed through bitter experience: National Power,to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory
one of the intended successors to the Centralthere, it would still have to operate under the same
Electricity Generating Board, explains in its recentsiege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama
publicity that, "Although not implicated in either thecalls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.
greenhouse effect or acid rain, nuclear power