In his State of the Union address, President Bush continued to frame foreign policy as a struggle between evil and virtue - which in his lexicon is "freedom" and "democracy."

TODAY'S BYLINE Neils is an Albuquerque resident and a board member of the Los Alamos Study Group, which monitors nuclear weapons programs in New Mexico.

In spite of near universal accord to the contrary in the international community, the president insists we are "winning" his adventure in Iraq.

Likewise, his trumpeted plans on renewable energy, even while knowing he had just slashed $28 million from the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in neighboring Colorado.

Worse, contrary to the president's rhetoric, researchers there have been told that the job cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol - technologies cited by Bush as solutions.

In his recently passed national energy act, he jumbled nuclear power with true renewable energy sources. It is difficult to ascertain - particularly in this most secretive of administrations - just where the billions of dollars for "renewable energy research" on his watch has actually gone. A new contrived definition provides cover for his less than credible claims.

In Republican New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici's curious view, nuclear power - an inherently dangerous enterprise that produces extremely dangerous wastes - is safe because we have not had a serious accident. Yet. This is a little like saying cars are safe because one has not personally been in an accident.

In fact, every nuclear power plant is a pre-deployed weapon, and the points of vulnerability are all too easy to enumerate.

The nuclear power industry enjoys a monumental 50-year public investment of perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, only through another round of massive tax incentives, coupled with licensing and regulatory relief, is it being coaxed back to life under the watchful stewardship of New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici of Albuquerque and Jeff Bingaman of Silver City.

Both are recipients of large contributions from parties with interests in nuclear power. They may also appreciate that the inevitable continued research into more advanced nuclear power means more money for their home team, the nuclear labs in New Mexico.

Tellingly, nuclear power plants figure prominently into the hydrogen economy touted by Bush, as they do in Gov. Bill Richardson's renewable power distribution proposal before the state Legislature.

Yet, why choose to revive this dangerous enterprise when we still cannot dispose of the waste from existing nuclear plants? The American public is also financing this, and the problematic Yucca Mountain dump at the Nevada (nuclear) Test Site will hold only the waste generated by nuclear facilities through 2015. Its capacity will be fully committed when it finally opens, if it does.

Proponents claim nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But this ignores other phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, which by some estimates produces one-third of the emissions of a modern natural gas power station of comparable size.

Damages from a major accident at a nuclear power plant could top $540 billion. American taxpayers insure nuclear power plants, limiting their liability to just $88 million per accident per plant in addition to the $200 million of insurance they can purchase commercially. Coverage of an accident is capped at $9.43 billion.

Presumably American taxpayers would pick up the remaining $530 billion. But what is that to a president, who will not acknowledge that he is shifting much of the expense of his Iraq incursion to future generations rather than pay for it now and have the electorate grasp the financial consequences of his "credit card leadership."

If nuclear power were a safe, cost-effective enterprise, the nuclear power industry would not have needed huge subsidies and public indemnification as incentives to build the plants we have. They'd be lining up to build these speculative new projects on their own dime.

Our approach to nuclear power socializes both the investment and risk while privatizing the profits, an arrangement into which no businessman would enter. But the federal taxpayer has.

If the countless billions that have been squandered on nuclear power had been invested in research in genuine renewable energy technologies, we probably would be energy independent by now.

Instead of contemplating licensing nuclear power plants to the developing world - with its limited infrastructure and all the related risks including nuclear weapon proliferation, accidents and disposal of toxic waste - we could export clean, decentralized renewable power technology.

What a wonderful legacy for our scientists and engineers to have on their conscience when they retire.