Going nuclear.

IT'S interesting how things turn around sometimes. Not that long ago, it was fashionable to despise and fear nuclear power. Lately, however, support for nuclear power seems to have turned around, and a few proposals have popped up to build what would be the first new nuclear power plants in decades.

The most surprising support for nuclear has come from environmentalists, at least some of them. It's surprising because hatred and distrust of nuclear helped give birth to the environmental movement 30 or more years ago.

The poster boy for this turnaround is Patrick Moore, who was one of the founders of Green peace. Writing in the Washington Post a few months ago, he began by saying that he once protested things nuclear, then said: "Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

Indeed, maybe the best thing going for nuclear is that it does not produce so-called greenhouse gases, which are now far more fashionable to despise than nuclear.

In his article, Moore pointed out that this country's 600-some coal-fired electricity plants produce 36 percent of our greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale cost-effective energy source that can reduce those emissions while satisfying our need for electricity. And it's the cheapest form of electricity, too.

Of course, a number of environmentalists take issue with that and fear and despise Moore. Some believe we shouldn't build any more electricity-generating plants at all and should rely instead on solar, wind, hydro and other renewables. Problem is, hydro is pretty much maxed out already, and even if we aggressively developed solar and wind power, they'd still only provide intermittent power and a relatively piddly amount at that. I mean, hamster power could be a possibility, too, I suppose.

The mini renaissance of nuclear came to mind last week because of two things. One was the electricity outages in the L.A. area caused mainly by the surge in demand because of the hot weather. The other was the effort in Sacramento to force a cutback in emissions that come from some businesses, including electricity generating plants. (See the article on Page 1.)

Put those two together--the inevitable need for more electricity in this growing state plus a possible cap on emissions--and it leads to a logical conclusion: nuclear plants.

Sadly, a new nuclear plant in California appears to be out of the question, at least for now. Construction of a nuclear plant is illegal in the state until there's a proven way to permanently dispose of spent fuel from the plants.

Granted, everyone wants nuclear waste stored safely, and no one wants a nuclear plant built on a fault line, but those are challenges that can be overcome.

After all, 109 nuclear plants in the United States (including two in California) quietly Supply about 20 percent of our electricity needs, yet no one has died from any U.S. nuclear accident, including our worst accident, Three Mile Island.

The notion that nuclear plants are unsafe is finally starting to turn around.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [e-mail].