No real confession of having been wrong, wrong, wrong, and reasoned from an improper premise, but still to be applauded. That is, Nicholas Kristoff, New York Times columnist. Today, he comes out in favor of nuclear power.

Of course, his reasoning is based on the global warming hoax, which is today's most important article of faith among greenie lefties, replacing the role that (gulp!) anti nuclear power formerly occuppied. Kristoff's head might explode if he admitted too much errant dogma much at one time.

Nevertheless, he is to be commended for noticing that nuclear power has a far better safety record than oil or coal—fired power. And for admitting that today's nuclear power technology is far advanced over that which existed in the 1960s, when the last generation of nuclear power facilities were built in the US.

I have long supported nuclear power as a wise energy move, on both cost and geostrategic reasoning. Environmentalists made the costs of nuclear stations far too high, but so did some silly engineering approaches. France, which standardized its basic design, has gained enormous benefit from cheap nuclear power which it exports to other EU countries.

If the progress of nuclear technology accelerates, we can expect further cost reduction in both construction and operation of nuclear generators. If this happens, it is possible to begin considering hydrogen—powered vehicles, since hydrogen is produced by the consumption of electricity. That would really cut down on our dependence on foreign oil, particularly if we develop ANWR, explore on federal land placed off limits, and use our offshore resources also placed off limit for further development.

Getting the greenies to fess up to their nuclear errancy is a good first step in getting America on the road toward a nuclear—powered future. So we congratulate Nick, though an apology for past error would have been a classy move on his part. I guess the words "I was wrong" do not fall easily from his lips or keyboard.

Thomas Lifson   4 9 05