The Nuclear Options Kevin D. Williamson deliciously captures the confusions and intellectual schizophrenia in these many decades of debates over the “peaceful atom” (“The Nuclear Heresy,” August 15). There is, in fact, no energy phenomenon that comes close to matching what nuclear fission offers, something that was obvious to its proponents from the earliest days and was the central animating reason for excitement.

Perhaps obviously, it had nothing to do with carbon dioxide and everything to do with the broad environmental — and strategic, and supply-chain — benefits from the enormous advantages of energy density. One pound of nuclear fuel matches 60,000 pounds of oil, 100,000 pounds of coal, or 1 million pounds of Tesla batteries. To Williamson’s point, that’s with 20th-century technology. While there is much promise in the dozen-plus new designs on drawing boards for small (not necessarily “modular”) reactors, it bears noting — and the Chinese know this, not just the French — that the current highly evolved designs for big power plants (the world needs a lot of electricity) are what need to be, and can be, built first. The engineering and economics for nuclear plants closely resemble those for aircraft, with big markets for many sizes and designs.

I would take issue with only one point: It’s not just “American conservatives” who do not put “climate change at the top of their to-do lists.” Gallup’s long-running tracking poll about what people volunteer as the “most important problem” finds that the economy and inflation top the list by a huge margin. Next is “government/poor leadership.” The Russia “situation” is halfway down the top ten. Climate change is far further down the list.

Mark P. Mills

Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute