President Obama has made it clear that he wants to promote the use of “green energy” in the United States. It’s an idea who’s time came in the early 1970s when our nation ran out of usable crude oil. After that we became a country of oil-guzzling addicts that have been forced to purchase much of our energy from foreign entities who are downright hostile to our interests.

Wind and Solar power are key to Obama’s new energy plan. That’s all well and good. Wind and solar energy production means jobs to a nation of increasingly unemployed workers, but will it be enough?

Wind and solar energy productions creates job, but so does nuclear

Wind and solar aren’t the only green technologies than employ people. They show much promise, and can be used in many parts of the country effectively. Yet I’ve yet to see many experts optimistic enough to endorse wind or solar as the sole solution to our energy crisis. They certainly can help, and will in spots, but they’ll fall far short of the capacity needed by the country’s 300 million people and their dizzying array of electric devices.

“Compared to conventional coal, it looks good”

Nuclear energy production can be deployed to help “fill in the gaps” where wind and solar just aren’t enough. President Obama’s pick for Department of Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has spoken publicly about the idea of building when he was at Berkeley in 2005.

When asked point black whether new fission-based nuclear power plants should be built in the United States, Chu greeted the idea enthusiastically.

“Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early ’70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. The technology of separating [used fuel from still-viable fuel] and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.”

When asked to compare coal to nuclear, he was equally clear.

“Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good – what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.”

Right now, wind and solar are growing fast but combined represent less than 1.25% of the nation’s energy production. Nuclear energy currently makes up just under 20% of the country’s energy requirements, despite the dearth of new nuclear power plant construction since the 1970s.

President Obama isn’t negative about nuclear energy

President Barack Obama hasn’t said much on the subject of nuclear energy. Many of his comments are along the lines of this one.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama said. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

He’s made similar statements on other occasions. Without putting too fine of a point on it, Obama supports nuclear energy as long as it’s safe. He’s concerned with storage and waste, just like Dr. Chu and every sane individual, but he’s open to the idea of using nuclear energy.

As President Obama is still new to office, it’s completely understandable that the energy policy debate isn’t settled. It’s just beginning. But from what can be garnered from certain public statements, he’d at least be willing to enter into more talks about the subject.

If the issues of nuclear safety, and maybe even most importantly, storage of radioactive materials, can be worked out, nuclear power production could quickly replace coal production at a faster rate than wind and solar.

It will be interesting to see if Obama’s Energy Policy evolves to include nuclear and hydro. Right now, it just doesn’t look like wind and solar have the muscle to get the job of real change done.