It’s no secret that Marshall University and West Virginia University sometimes have had difficulty seeing eye to eye. Football is one of those situations. While politicians and Marshall have attempted to restart football games between these two universities, the word on the street is that WVU feels it is too good to bother with MU. More about that later.

So, when I saw a recent headline in this newspaper, “WV House wants MU, WVU to explore nuclear potential,” it made me wonder if these two institutions could solve two disparate issues.

The reporter notes that “legislative leaders have embraced nuclear energy politics after recently lifting the state’s previous ban on the constructions of nuclear power plants.” The Legislature’s resolution wants the universities to lead a group to “assist the state with development of policies and programs necessary to facilitate nuclear energy development in the state … no later than the end of 2023.”

In about 11 months, these two universities are supposed to be ready to lead West Virginia, a state steeped in coal, gas and oil production and half-heartedly embracing solar and wind energy sources, to suddenly go nuclear. Doesn’t it sound like the Legislature is already set to go nuclear?

Nuclear energy holds promise and works well in some places, but problems and politics have impacted it. Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant’s damage by a tidal wave illustrates that a nuclear plant’s location is critical. Russia’s 1986 Chernobyl explosion makes it obvious that quality construction and maintenance are mandatory or millions of people near the area of the nuclear plant will be negatively impacted. The Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979, reportedly due to human and mechanical errors and requiring evacuation of 150,000 people, illustrates nuclear problems can happen in the U.S.

According to the American Chemical Society, nuclear energy plants produce large amounts of energy with low CO2 emissions but are about three times more expensive than solar energy per megawatt hour. While it produces radioactive waste and some dangers, nuclear energy has had fewer deaths than coal mines and oil refineries. In the 1990s, 18% of the world’s energy came from nuclear, but by 2020, it was just 10%.

Hopefully, science not politics will determine if nuclear energy might be good for West Virginia. Some people including Bill Gates, who recently visited the state, advocate a newer type of nuclear plant. But MU and WVU’s joint leadership in this area, leads me back to football.

The MU-WVU football games were great for fans and the economy. After about three quarters of a century absence, these teams played football in 1997 — WVU 42, MU 31. No games played again until 2006, but then yearly till 2012. Two games were played in Huntington; the 2010 game with WVU 24, MU 21 in overtime was fantastic. But for the past 10 years, no games. Yes, WVU has won every competition, but the fans love the games. Could it be that WVU is fearful of a MU-Notre Dame result?

If it’s time for MU and WVU to play ball together in rapidly developing a plan for nuclear energy in West Virginia, it certainly is time for a plan on the gridiron.

Diane W. Mufson is a retired psychologist and regular contributor to The Herald Dispatch Opinion page. Her email address is [email protected].