Time for a nuclear renaissance?

There's talk these days of nuclear power as a viable alternative to carbon-intensive power production, and part of the solution to finding cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy. Of course, this all depends on your version of "clean", since one of the big challenges of producing nuclear energy is figuring out what the heck to do with all that radioactive waste. But in terms of carbon output, it's far preferable to coal as an energy source, and achieves the goal of reducing the carbon footprint of our energy production.

For anyone who remembers Three Mile Island and the meltdown that inflamed public opposition to nuclear power in this country, the mere suggestion of starting up nuclear power plants - let alone building new ones - can be unconscionable. But even nuclear power's detractors are changing their minds and taking a different view of what constitutes "dangerous" when it comes to our energy sources. Maybe it has something to do with the slightly different world view we have in this country compared to 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident occurred, or the generous nuclear subsidies included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005, but the tide is starting turn back toward nuclear power as a viable energy source. After all, there's clearly an enormous (environmental and economic) risk to continuing with "business as usual" in terms of how we quench this country's insatiable thirst for energy. We have to start weighing risk with a different perspective than we did in 1979, and nuclear power just may turn out to be one of our safer choices.

For more about the nuclear power renaissance in the U.S., check out David Whitford's July 31st article, "Going Nuclear" in Fortune magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/08/06/100141305/index.htm