Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

'Nuclear energy' omission puzzling

James Davis
Opinion Columnist

President George W. Bush is on the right track. In Tuesday night's State of the Union Address, the president not only recognized the need for alternative fuel sources, he went so far as to propose the Advanced Energy Initiative, a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research by the U.S. Department of Energy. Unfortunately, the president seems to have taken some of his clean-energy dialogue from the scriptwriters at The Simpsons.

After encouraging development of zero-emission coal-fired plants and "revolutionary solar and wind technologies" to power our homes and offices, Bush ended with the coup de grace: "clean, safe nuclear technology." I didn't think anyone today could say "clean, safe nuclear technology" without an ironic sneer, but Tuesday night, there was our president, appealing with his trademark sincerity to our friend the atom.

On Wednesday, the White House released an expansion of the energy policies Bush laid out in his address. According to the release, the increases in research funding Bush proposed are substantial. For "The President's Coal Research Initiative," Bush has dedicated $281 million for the 2007 budget. Even more dramatic is "The President's Solar America Initiative," for which Bush has set aside $148 million, a $65 million increase over Fiscal Year 2006. Wind energy has been allotted $44 million, up $5 million from last year, which the White House hopes "will help dramatically increase the use of wind energy in the United States." 

You may notice I left something out. Well, so did the White House. Nowhere in the fact sheet expanding the energy policies is a budget for "clean, safe nuclear energy" research laid out. In fact, the term "nuclear energy" appears only once in the entire release, in reference to the president's speech.

Was this an oversight? Does the White House plan to dedicate special attention to nuclear energy policies at a later date? Are they being deliberately evasive? Encouraging as the increases in alternative energy research are to the environment and the economy, I can't help but be discouraged by what has been left out.

I probably don't need to tell most of you this, but the term "nuclear energy" shouldn't be thrown around without a proper amount of skepticism. After all, the United States hasn't ordered a new nuclear plant since 1979 for a reason. Three Mile Island sobered Americans out of their nuclear frenzy, and Chernobyl put the nail in the coffin. These are extreme examples, and when you stack up the safety of nuclear power to other industries, it does better than most. (Think of the BP explosion.) 

The main problem with nuclear energy is waste generation, which is exactly why, if Bush plans to implement nuclear power on a large scale, he needs to take it seriously. It's a complex process that I won't even begin to address in this column, but very specific plans for recycling materials and waste disposal must be laid out before we even consider production of new nuclear plants.

And now, so far as I can tell, we have nothing. I don't know if the president has even budgeted money for nuclear research, much less how he plans to make new nuclear technology safer than before. If anyone finds White House information on nuclear development for 2007, tell me about it. (My e-mail's at the bottom.) 

For now, I'm just a little puzzled. I can't say I'm categorically opposed to nuclear energy, but I'm definitely opposed to bringing it up without any plan. Excuse the pun, but if you're going to mention nuclear energy, you'd better expect a reaction. 

Davis, an opinion columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at jpdavis@uh.edu.