Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

212
The billions of dollars per year that would be generated by such
a tax would represent to us the most exciting commitment ever
made by this country to a rational energy future. It would salvage
something positive out of the Chernobyl disaster.
I believe that a joint program aimed at developing both cost-effective
solar electricity and meltdown free reactors offers the best
hope for both the solar and the nuclear industry.
Now why should the nuclear industry favor such a tax? Because
the handwriting for them is on the wall. The only long-term hope
for the industry, as some speakers have said today, is in meltdown
free designs. I think the industry needs new critical allies and a
new source of development funds.
Why should environmentalists and solar electricity advocates
support a tax whose revenues would be shared with nuclear researchers?
Because there is no way to develop a political concensus
that will give solar electricity the edge it needs to comj)ete with
electricity from coal.
If current trends continue, the nuclear option will certainly die,
but the victorious survivor will not be solar cells or solar collectors;
it will be polluting coal plants, plants that cause respiratory illness,
acid rain, and increased global temperatures.
Global warming from fossil fuel is such a serious environmental
problem that environmentalists cannot afford to turn their backs
on any possible option that might prove preferable.
If nuclear researchers can develop meltdown free designs, and if
solar electricity fails to live up to its promise, I believe the environmentalists
of the next century will change their opinion of nuclear
power.
Now in conclusion, I hope that these remarks will spark discussion
of positive responses that can be made to the Chernobyl accident,
and the National Audubon Society is ready to work cooperatively
with a wide range of groups to find concensus on energy
policy.
Thank you. Senator.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beyea follows:]