The South Texas Project nuclear power plant near Bay City, Texas is shown under construction in Oct. 2009. Expansion plans would make the plant the largest in the U.S., doubling the number of reactors to four and marks the first nuclear plant license application in nearly 30 years.
In 2005, environmental groups mounted a fierce campaign against nuclear provisions included in the climate bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
Then came an energy crisis, skyrocketing gas prices, a hard-fought presidential campaign, a recession and ballooning unemployment. Four years later, in an example of how quickly politics and minds can change in Washington, it seems the Senate now is ready to go nuclear when a climate bill hits Congress.
“Everyone who can count noses knows that nuclear is going to be in the bill somewhere,” said Frank O’Donnell, head of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch.
Republicans have long pushed nuclear power as a significant part of their energy platform; the party’s energy plan released in July advocates bringing 100 new nuclear reactors on line by 2030. McCain made nuclear power central to his 2008 presidential campaign, basing his energy plan around a proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors over the next two decades.
But in recent months, Democrats and the Obama administration have reversed their party’s traditional direction by embracing the construction of new reactors. Nuclear provisions, many Democrats believe, could lure a handful of Republicans on board a climate bill — votes that could be crucial to its passage.
In October, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) included nuclear provisions in a New York Times op-ed that broadly described their priorities for climate legislation. Last week, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced legislation that would double nuclear power over the next two decades.
And even Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who’s long raised questions about the environmental risks of nuclear power, included a handful of nuclear provisions in legislation that passed the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this month.
The White House has also emerged as a cautious but active proponent of nuclear power.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that the U.S. should consider expanding an $18.5 billion loan guarantee program for new nuclear plants. The Energy Department is working to finalize the already authorized guarantees, which could build as many as four new plants.
“I would say that in order to really restart in a serious way, you might want more than just three or four [new nuclear plants] in order to get it going,” Chu told Bloomberg News in October.
Those types of comments have led proponents to herald the start of a “nuclear renaissance” — one that won’t be marked by the vocal protests that were a hallmark of the environmental movement during the 1970s and 1980s.
“I believe that you are seeing a wholesale reconsideration of the politics of nuclear, particularly by Democrats, and a willingness to engage constructively on nuclear and climate legislation,” said Alex Flint, a lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
But no one is singing “Kumbaya” quite yet.
Nuclear provisions alone won’t be enough to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a likely Republican-led filibuster of the climate bill in the Senate. Most Republicans oppose an economywide cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gases, the heart of the Democratic climate proposals. And conservatives seem unwilling to support legislation that includes those pollution controls, even if it also means greater support for nuclear power.