Admittedly, minor accidents and slip 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 shutdowns. 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 administrations 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 oil 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 Bosh 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 environ mentally 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 all. 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.
单选题 What"s the public"s opinion about nuclear industry?
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:本题是主旨题。文章第二段着重描述了大众对核电技术的种种忧虑和看法。然而这一段的理解重点应该在转折连词however之后。群众所要求的并非禁止或关闭所有核电站,而强调"高度警惕"和"定期检查评估",对于运行安全的核反应堆可以续发执照,以便充分利用现有的核电资源。
单选题 The most important reason wily the Bush administration support more new nuclear power plants is that ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:本题是细节题。文章第五段列举了布什政府支持建设更多核电站的三个主要原因。在这里需分辨主次、轻重。文中在提到第三个原因的时候,用了most crucially(最关键的是)这样的字句,表明现任政府支持核电发展的最主要的原因是核电站的建设和运营已不再完全依赖政府的财政援助。
单选题 According to the author energy security can only be achieved by ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:本题要求理解作者的意图和观点。文章第六段探讨了核电的发展是否有助于实现能源安全的问题。在这里作者提出异议。段中有这样几处关键信息;Yet these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny…doubly absurd…Security is enhanced not by seeking energy self-sufficiency but through diversification of supplies.Creating lots of fissile material…an odd way to look for security anyway。由此可以判断正确答案。
单选题 According to the passage, which of the following measures is the least helpful in protecting the environment?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:本题是细节题。文章最后一段中作者提出了几点有助于环保的建议—推广使用干净能源、取消政府对化石燃料的补贴以及诵过价格改革控制废气排放。并且在文章的最后作者再次重申全球气候变暖不足以成为大规模发展核电的理由。
单选题 It"s implied that ______.
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析:本题是推断题。要求认真理解细节,并区别作者明确陈述的观点和间接含蓄的观点。在文章中作者都直截了当地阐述了其他三个选项中所涉及的内容。但在第六段中作者只是含蓄地批评了布什政府的环境政策(Global warming is indeed a risk that should be taken more seriously than the Bush administration has so far done).