Nuclear Option

Nukes, nukes, and … nukes. These days, when it comes to energy and climate change, that seems to be all Republicans want to talk about. Throughout last week's hearings on the Senate climate bill, Lamar Alexander kept interjecting that a massive ramp-up of nuclear power was the only real solution to global warming, bringing up the subject at every turn. For many of his colleagues, it's one of the few energy ideas that piques any interest at all. "Certainly, nuclear production, advancing that would be important to my side of the aisle--regardless of what bill you are talking about," Bob Corker declared.

That view is not wholly without merit. Many projections for a low-carbon future do envision a supporting role for nuclear power--indeed, a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, by making fossil fuels pricier, could help usher in the first new wave of reactors in the United States since the 1970s. But that's not enough for the GOP, which wants to put nuclear into overdrive. The party's energy plan, released in July, calls for a whopping 100 new reactors built by 2030. That's twice as many as even the most optimistic industry forecasts envision, and, given that the plants are estimated to cost at least $6-$10 billion a pop and have difficulty attracting private investment, they would likely need hefty subsidies--something the right is supposed to frown at. "For reasons I don't fully understand," says Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress, "nuclear power has a magical place in the hearts of conservatives."

The debate over nukes has long exacerbated the deadlock over climate policy. Of the handful of Republicans who think global warming is a serious problem--like Alexander--most refuse to address it unless nuclear power gets a starring role. But many Democrats and green groups are loath to lavish even more money on an industry that has received countless subsidies to date--including $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005--yet still struggles to procure financing for new plants, to say nothing of concerns about safety and waste disposal. John McCain has chalked up his refusal to support the very cap-and-trade policies he once championed to "left-wing environmentalist organizations that are not allowing us to move forward with nuclear power."

Now, however, that deadlock may be dissolving. In October, John Kerry, the lead sponsor of the Senate cap-and-trade bill, co-authored a New York Times op-ed with Republican Lindsey Graham outlining a possible bipartisan deal that would include offshore drilling and nukes. "Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets," they wrote, endorsing the need to "jettison cumbersome regulations" and help utilities "secure financing for more plants." Graham has hinted that sufficient nuclear incentives could get "at least half a dozen" Republicans on board--allowing a climate bill to squeak through the Senate. As a result, many liberals and environmental groups are gritting their teeth and nervously bracing for a possible compromise. But that raises the question: If Democrats do haggle on nukes, will Republicans actually step up and agree to tackle global warming?

Tracing the GOP's love affair with the atom isn't easy. For much of the postwar era, nuclear power had broad bipartisan support in Congress. It wasn't until the early 1970s, when environmental and consumer groups began fretting about issues like reactor safety, that divisions emerged. "Democrats started advocating a slower approach, with tougher regulations, rather than the all-engines approach that had been the norm," says Robert Duffy, author of Nuclear Politics in America. In the 1980s, as one nuclear project after another stalled in the face of cost overruns, conservatives blamed excessive regulations and green meddling for the industry's woes. Even as Ronald Reagan's Nuclear Regulatory Commission was revising rules to make it easier for utilities to build plants, says Duffy, "there was always this perspective that government was to blame."

The battle lines of this earlier clash are still visible today. McCain, for one, "feels instinctively that nuclear has been dealt an unfair hand," as one of his campaign advisers told me last year. Alexander was governor of Tennessee in the 1980s when the Tennessee Valley Authority, much to his chagrin, mothballed three planned reactors due to soaring costs. Local politics matter, too: Graham's state of South Carolina is home to seven reactors, and his political campaigns have relied on generous support from nuclear utilities. Plus, of course, hyping a low-carbon energy source lets conservatives scoff at environmentalists for not being "serious" about global warming.