Jan 27 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Elizabeth Souder The Dallas Morning News

Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an energy option. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's "agnostic" on whether more nuclear plants should be built.

As climate change rises to the top of voters' minds, many Democrats are reconsidering their anti-nuclear stance. The party front-runners' refusal to rule it out may indicate a big shift in U.S. environmental politics, coming at a time when Texas power companies want to build up to six new reactors.

Nuclear power plants can generate massive amounts of cheap electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases. Republicans have long advocated nuclear power, in contrast to many Democrats.

"They've gone from 'no' to 'yes, but,' and some even describe themselves as agnostics, and that's a big improvement," said Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative programs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which supports the nuclear industry.

Still, Mr. Freeman is nervous about a Democratic president delaying or halting the building of plants.

"It's 'yes,' and the smile comes on their face with a 'but,' " he said.

Until last year, no one had filed plans for a new nuclear plant in the U.S. since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Now the industry is poised for what many are calling a renaissance.

Power companies have proposed around 30 new reactors across the country, taking advantage of new building technology as Americans are demanding more juice.

Republican presidential candidates say nuclear power promotes energy independence and offers a solution to global warming. A Republican president would probably continue policies of the Bush administration to support new reactors.

"We have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel and biomass," Republican candidate Mike Huckabee says in his energy platform.

But Democrats still worry about nuclear accidents, storing waste safely and the possibility that fuel could land in terrorists' hands. Those concerns could slow plans to build reactors or even halt them.

John Edwards opposes nuclear power. He has said there's no safe way to dispose of the waste, and reactors take a long time -- and a lot of money -- to build.

Mr. Obama is in the opposite camp.

"We should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix," he said during last summer's CNN-YouTube debate. Nuclear plants can cut greenhouse gas emissions, he says.

Mrs. Clinton articulates both views. She worries about climate change, as well as nuclear waste spills. But American technology can address those worries, she said during the debate last summer. She doesn't state explicitly whether she supports building new plants.

Voters reconsider

Democratic voters haven't come to a consensus either.

"It's clearly a mixed bag," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, head of the Texas office for Public Citizen, which opposes nuclear power. "Even people who were strong anti-nukers are beginning to have that conversation again."

Dean Rindy, head of Rindy Miller Media, a Democratic political consulting firm in Austin, said most people, including the presidential candidates, haven't been forced to choose a position on nuclear power yet. So even the most connected politicos can't predict which way the party will go.

"There hasn't been a lot of passionate debate on this in Democratic caucuses. The debate is just beginning, really," said Mr. Rindy, who opposes nuclear power and worked on environmental efforts surrounding Barton Springs in Austin.

It's difficult to categorize the liberals who support nuclear power and those who do not. It's not necessarily young students conscious of climate change vs. aging anti-nuke hippies. And it's not always environmental activists vs. business types.

Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense, said his group reconsidered its anti-nuclear stance a few years ago. Now the environmental advocacy group says nuclear power is an important low-carbon energy option, though members still worry about safety.

The dividing line seems to be between people who are motivated to compromise with the energy industry and those who want to devote resources solely to renewable power. Uranium used in nuclear plants isn't a renewable fuel.

"Members of the political class, particularly senators and congressmen who have those nuclear facilities in their districts, are customarily supportive of nuclear power," said Mr. Freeman of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

All three top Democratic candidates have received donations from employees of nuclear power companies. The amount tends to match the candidate's acceptance of nuclear power and tends to be higher than what Republican candidates have received from the same companies.

Mr. Obama has gotten $197,950 in donations from employees of Chicago nuclear power company Exelon Corp. since 2003, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The senator represents Illinois, the state with the most nuclear reactors.

In 2007, Mrs. Clinton received $68,650 from employees of NRG Energy, a New Jersey power company that wants to build nuclear plants in Texas. In the past, she has received $2,500 from employees of Energy Future Holdings, $7,400 from Constellation Energy employees and $11,400 from Entergy Corp. employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

She also received $10,000 from an NRG Energy political action committee during the current election cycle.

Mr. Edwards received $1,450 from energy employees between 2001 and 2004.

Issues await

Experts say even the most pro-nuclear Democratic president might change the Bush administration's nuclear policies to make peace with the anti-nuke side of the party.

Under President Bush, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission created a plan to process reactor licenses faster. A new president might change the process or at least take some time to study it.

Anti-nuclear activists oppose the loan guarantees for nuclear plants that were part of last year's energy bill.

NRG Energy, which plans to build the first new reactor in the U.S. in South Texas, has said the loan guarantees are vital to persuade investors to finance the multibillion-dollar projects.

But perhaps the most crucial question for the candidates is whether to build the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada. That's where Congress -- with the backing of Mr. Bush -- propose storing spent nuclear fuel.

The Yucca debate heated up earlier this month ahead of the Nevada Democratic caucus, which Mrs. Clinton won.

The top Democratic candidates oppose building the repository, citing safety concerns. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sound hopeful of finding a different solution for nuclear waste.

"A lot of the candidates have beat themselves up to see who can be more anti-Yucca," Mr. Freeman said.

Republicans

RUDY GIULIANI: Says "every potential solution" must be pursued, including nuclear power, increased energy exploration and more aggressive investment in alternative energy sources. Says energy independence can be achieved through a strategy that emphasizes diversification, innovation and conservation.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Wants to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil by pursuing "all avenues" of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel and biomass.

JOHN MCCAIN: Wants to limit carbon dioxide emissions "by harnessing market forces" that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster. Seeks to reduce dependence on foreign supplies of energy. Wants the U.S. to lead in a way that ensures all nations "do their rightful share" on the environment.

MITT ROMNEY: Wants to accelerate construction of nuclear power plants as part of a "robust, cleaner and reliable energy mix." Seeks energy independence not by halting all oil imports but by "making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands."

Democrats

HILLARY CLINTON: Says she's "agnostic" about building nuclear power plants. Prefers renewable energy and conservation because of concerns about nuclear power's cost, safety and waste disposal. Wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to cut oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, with some money going toward alternative energy.

JOHN EDWARDS: Opposes nuclear power because of cost and safety concerns. Favors creating a $13 billion-a-year fund to finance research and development of energy technologies; wants to reduce oil imports by nearly a third of the oil projected to be used in 2025.

BARACK OBAMA: Says the U.S. can't meet its climate goals if it removes nuclear power as an option but says such issues as security of nuclear fuel, waste and waste storage need to be addressed first. Wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new energy sources. Seeks to reduce "oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent by 2030."