The following editorial appeared in The Miami Herald on Wednesday, Aug. 16:

Nuclear energy is the future. This is the rationalization behind Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman’s decision to provide incentives to companies willing to build the first nuclear plants in the United States in 30 years. The government is offering $2 billion in federal insurance for six new plants. But this initiative also needs more research. There still are no good answers to the biggest problem that comes with nuclear energy – where to dispose of the radioactive waste.

Nuclear energy is crucial for the U.S. economy and environment. Reinvigorating the industry now would come at a time when energy prices are escalating. Relatively little fuel is needed to run nuclear-power plants, and they would generate electricity at cheaper rates. Moreover, nuclear energy is the most promising long-term approach to reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

Some environmentalists believe nuclear energy is a viable strategy to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Additionally, these plants do not pollute the air with harmful gases such as carbon monoxide, aerosols or photochemical smog.

In addition to incentives for nuclear plants, the government should look for ways to minimize the risk from nuclear waste. Nuclear-plant construction was halted in this country after the partial meltdown in 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. Yet a bad historical event should be cause for improvement, not a restraint on beneficial technology.

The government should proceed with deliberate caution in developing new nuclear plants as it figures out how to dispose of the waste that will be generated.