Nov. 19--IF THE Barack Obama administration wants to curtail emissions and reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, they might want to pay attention to the British government.

The British government recently called for the construction of 10 new nuclear plants in England and Wales to meet increasing energy demands while complying with strict emissions standards that are being adopted. Most of the plants would be built near communities with existing or decommissioned nuclear plants.

The plan is for the government to restrict the construction of coal-fired power plants unless they incorporate carbon-capture technology. The British also have a goal of generating 30 percent of their electricity through renewable sources, such as wind and solar, by 2020. Currently, Britain produces less than 3 percent from renewables, compared with 7 percent in the United States and 15 percent in Germany.

Nuclear power does not create carbon emissions, although it does generate radioactive waste that has to be handled. However, there is technology available to safely handle radioactive waste.

Similar to the United States, several nuclear plants were built in Britain between the 1950s and 1980s, until nuclear power fell out of favor because of concerns after accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

The United States has also been reluctant to build new nuclear power plants, and the process of building or expanding a plant is agonizingly slow. Expansion plans at the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant are a long way from reality.

Although the global warming debate still rages, it's clear that the Obama administration believes carbon emissions are an issue and should be reduced. Carbon-capture systems are encouraging but are in the early testing stages. Wind farms and solar energy are also alternatives. Wind farms can be controversial because some believe they destroy views of the countryside. While wind and sun can be viable alternatives, it's not feasible for those methods to totally replace the large energy that can be generated by other means.

That leaves nuclear power, which the Obama administration has failed to embrace. But the argument for nuclear power is a strong one. The generation is clean, and plants that are properly built, maintained and monitored are safe. The radioactive waste can be safely handled with proper precautions.

It's clear that energy demands are going to continue to grow. Coal-fired electricity causes concerns because of its emissions, and while carbon-capture systems are encouraging, the cost at this point is prohibitive.

Britain has solved that problem with increased emphasis on renewable energy and nuclear power.

The Obama administration might want to follow suit.

-----

To see more of Herald & Review, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.herald-review.com

Copyright (c) 2009, Herald and Review, Decatur, Ill.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.