Admittedly， minor accidents and sup-ups continue to shake public confidence in nuclear power.Given the unquantifiable risks that nuclear power carries，it is only right that the industry be subjected to the test of public opinion and due political process. However，this argues for exceptional vigilance，regulatory scrutiny and accountability——and not for bans or shut downs.
Those nuclear operators with a good safety record deserve to have their licenses renewed，so that existing plants may run to the end of their useful lives.The Bush administration‘s enthusiastic support goes a lot further than this，however.It also wants to see new plants.Proponents of new nuclear power stations make three arguments in their favor.They will enhance energy security by lessening dependence on fossil fuels;far from being environmentally harmful，they will be beneficial because they will reduce the output of greenhouse gases;and，most crucially，the economics of nuclear power has improved from the days when it was wholly dependent on bail out and subsidy.
Yet these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.The claim that governments should support nuclear power to reduce their vulnerability to the OPEC oil cartel is doubly absurd.Little oil is used in power generation：what nuclear power displaces is mostly natural gas and coal，which are not only more plentiful than o订but also geographically better distributed.Security is enhanced not by seeking energy self sufficiency but through diversification of supplies.Creating lots of fissile material that might be pinched by terrorists is an odd way to look for security anyway.What about the argument that climate change might be the great savior of nuclear power? Global warming is indeed a risk that should be taken more seriously than the Bush administration has so far done.Nuclear plants do not produce any carbon dioxide，which is the principal greenhouse gas.However，rushing in response to build dozens of new nuclear plants would be both needlessly expensive and environmentally unsound.It would make far more sense to adopt a carbon tax， which would put clean energy sources such as solar and wind on an equal footing with nuclear，whose waste poses an undeniable(if remote)environmental threat of its own for aeons to come.Governments should also dismantle all subsidies on fossil fuels——especially for coal，the dirtiest of a11.They should adopt reforms that send proper price signals to those who use power，and so reduce emissions.Global warming certainly provides one argument in favor of nuclear power，but it is not sufficient on its own to justify a nuclear renaissance.
1.What's the public‘s opinion about nuclear industry?
[A]People have little confidence in nuclear power for the potential disaster of nuclear accidents.
[B]People think it important to exercise strict monitoring and effective management of the existing plants.
[C]People believe the best way to avoid nuclear disaster is to shut down all the nuclear power stations.
[D]People agree to prohibit the existing nuclear plants from running to the end of their useful lives.
2.The most important reason why the Bush administration support more new nuclear power plants is that—————————
[A] they will increase energy security
[B]they help lessen dependence on fossil fuels
[C]they are environmentally friendly
[D] they need little government financial support
3.According to the author energy security can only be achieved by———————。
[A]using less oil in power generation
[B]replacing fossil fuels with more nuclear power
[C] seeking energy self sufficiency
[D] expanding the sources of power supply
4.According to the passage，which of the following measures is the least helpful in protecting the environment?
[A]Encouraging the use of clean energy sources.
[B]Cutting off subsidies on all fossil fuels.
[C]Adopting price reform to reduce emission.
一级建造师二级建造师消防工程师造价工程师土建职称房地产经纪人公路检测工程师建筑八大员注册建筑师二级造价师监理工程师咨询工程师房地产估价师 城乡规划师结构工程师岩土工程师安全工程师设备监理师环境影响评价土地登记代理公路造价师公路监理师化工工程师暖通工程师给排水工程师计量工程师