New Nuclear Plants Of America: Open Door For Other Country.

rgy demands of the world are continuouslyrecent publicity that, "Although not implicated in
increasing. Experts are worried about the futureeither the greenhouse effect or acid rain, nuclear
of power generation because there are notpower generation does, of course, present its
enough supplies of coal, water and gas to fulfill theown set of environmental concerns".
needs of mankind in the long term future.Despite such efforts, two fundamental questions
Alternative sources of energy such as nuclearwhich are central to the whole debate about
energy are being developed. Nuclear energy hasnuclear power and global warming remained
several advantages over other sources of energyunanswered. These were, "Does nuclear power
because it is not limited by space or location.contribute to carbon dioxide emissions?" and "Can
As the name itself suggests, a nuclear powernuclear power provide a realistic long-term solution
plant is a facility where nuclear energy isto global warming.Mr Obama said they were
harnessed to generated electricity. For those ofneeded to meet future energy needs and reduce
us who haven’t heard about this term, itdependence on foreign oil. There has been no new
may seem like a new concept since we usuallynuclear power plants started in the US since the
hear of atomic and hydrogen bombs which use1979 accident at Three Mile Island. President
nuclear energy for large scale destruction. But theObama called the programmed "only the
same power is used for constructive purposes inbeginning" of efforts to develop "safe, clean,"
nuclear power plants. This gives an edge toenergy efficient technologies. He called for
nuclear power plants over conventional sourcescomprehensive energy legislation which assigns a
like coal or gas because it means freedom fromcost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving
geographical factors and parameters. Furthermoreutility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner
since the amount of fuel required is much less asnuclear fuel.
compared to conventional sources of powerBut I think that after announcing the two new
generation, there is no need to have extensivenuclear plants in America, will create the confusion
storage facilities and transportation networks forabout some countries that want to nuclear power
the same amount of power generated.enhancement in their countries will be much
Speaking on BBC television a year ago the theninterested to marketing the nuclear material and
Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholasequipments.President Barack Obama insists that
Ridley, stated that, "There is absolutely no doubtthe U.S. mission in Afghanistan is about "making
that if you want to arrest the Greenhouse Effectsure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S.
you should concentrate on a massive increase inhomeland and U.S. interests and our allies" or
nuclear generating capacity. Nuclear power"project violence against" American citizens. The
stations give out no sulphur and carbon dioxide, soreasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan,
they are the cleanest form of power generation".al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop
Despite subsequent qualifications to these views,there to carry out its dirty work. As the
it is obvious that Mr. Ridley was acting as thepresident puts it, Afghanistan would "again be a
stalking horse for a Prime Minister and abase for terrorists who want to kill as many of
Government that clearly favour nuclear power.our people as they possibly can." This argument is
Those responsible for the public relationsconstantly repeated but rarely examined; given
campaigns of the nuclear and related industriesthe costs and risks associated with the Obama
have taken a more subtle, yet no less emotiveadministration’s plans for the region.
approach.It is time such statements be given the scrutiny
Faced with a widening gulf between image andthey deserve. Multiple sources, including Lawrence
reality over nuclear economics, safety, radiationWright's book The Looming Tower, make clear
hazards, nuclear weapons proliferation,that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda
decommissioning and waste disposal; thein the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist
greenhouse effect and global warming hasgroup repeatedly violated agreements to refrain
provided a welcome lifeline for beleaguered publicfrom issuing inflammatory statements and
relations staff. In expensive double-spreadfomenting violence abroad. Then the al
advertisements, British Nuclear Fuels pic proclaims,Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks -- which the
"The Greenhouse Effect. We have the power toTaliban had nothing to do with -- led to the
prevent it" and nuclear power is portrayed as "atoppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the
source of clean energy for the future". Mindful ofTaliban’s limited interest in issues outside
rules governing factual content in advertising andthe "AfPak" region, if they came to power again
wary of an audience that has become betternow, they would be highly unlikely to host
informed through bitter experience: Nationalprovocative terrorist groups whose actions could
Power, one of the intended successors to thelead to another outside intervention.
Central Electricity Generating Board, explains in its