The development of nuclear power plants in the United States will chug forward regardless of who becomes the next president, industry experts say.
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has called for the construction of 45 plants by 2030. Democrat Barack Obama concedes that nuclear power has a role to play in cleaner-burning energy production but has set no construction targets and, unlike McCain, opposes storing the spent waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain -- a long-discussed but still-unused depository.
"Both candidates are pro-nuclear. It's the degree of promotion of nuclear that defines their differences," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for Public Citizen, a national consumer advocacy agency. "Whereas John McCain is seeking a massive expansion, Obama has been far more vague."
After a 30-year hiatus because of cost overruns, delays and the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, nuclear power plants again are under consideration by U.S. utilities.
Nuclear power lacks the environmentally damaging emissions of coal, which produces more than half of the nation's electricity. But reactors are costly to build and insure because of health risks posed if radioactive material inside the vessel head would escape. Long-term storage of the toxic waste at the Yucca Mountain site is an unresolved problem.
The Bush administration's energy policy reinvigorated the domestic nuclear industry, offering generous production tax credits, partial reimbursements against regulatory delays and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees.
Although final licensing and construction is years away, about half of the more than two dozen plants proposed would use reactors designed by Monroeville-based Westinghouse Electric Co. The one-time conglomerate exclusively designs, builds and maintains reactors, domestically and abroad.
This boost has meant 3,000 high-skilled Westinghouse jobs worldwide since 2005, hundreds of them locally. So rapid is expansion that the company is building a headquarters in Cranberry, to open next summer, and renting space in the interim to accommodate new employees.
"The nuclear renaissance is here, regardless of who would win the election," said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. "We have had support from both sides of the aisle. It was during the Clinton administration that the law was changed that had precluded us from doing work in China. Our contracts there were won with strong support from the Bush administration."
Westinghouse last year won Beijing's first major international contract for reactor construction. For $5.3 billion, the company will deliver to China four of its AP1000 reactors -- designed to be safer, simpler and less expensive than previous models. Each reactor can generate electricity to power nearly 1 million homes.
On Wednesday, President Bush signed a landmark law permitting U.S. companies to sell nuclear materials to India for the first time since 1974. That policy breaks with the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which banned such sales to the energy-hungry nation because it has tested nuclear weapons that could be used against neighboring Pakistan.
Much of Westinghouse's expansion is fueled by international business. The United Kingdom, South Africa and Canada are other potential customers, but U.S. growth is important, too. This spring the company signed engineering contracts with utilities in Georgia and South Carolina for four reactors, the first such deals since 1979.
Obama: More skeptical
Although Obama expresses more skepticism about nuclear power, he voted for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which offered billions in subsidies to the nuclear industry -- as well as to corn-based ethanol. Both are important constituencies in his home state of Illinois, the second-biggest corn grower after Iowa, and the headquarters of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest owner of nuclear plants.
Obama introduced legislation in 2006 strengthening reporting requirements for radiation leaks, such as those emitted in late 2005 from Exelon's facilities south of Chicago, but the proposal was weakened and stalled in committee. Exelon executives and employees are among Obama's largest campaign contributors.
Nevertheless, it would take a lot of persuading for Obama to support future nuclear subsidies, said his energy adviser, Jason Grumet.
Although Obama believes subsidies and incentives are critical to overcoming barriers for less-established energy producers, such as ethanol, "once these new technologies have had the chance to succeed, the marketplace and not government should determine the role that they play in the economy," Grumet said. "It is irresponsible and, ultimately, insincere to commit the country to a certain number of facilities regardless of their cost or performance."
The Obama campaign supports storage of nuclear material on-site at existing reactor facilities, as has been done for decades. In the battleground state of Nevada, it has run TV ads chiding McCain for supporting the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada yet opposing its transport through his home state of Arizona.
McCain has dubbed Obama "Dr. No," for supporting new reactors but not Yucca storage.
David Damore, a political scientist at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, said voters in his state have "Yucca fatigue," and the candidates' positions on the issue should matter little.
"There is a gap between the heated rhetoric you'll hear about, and the impact on behavior," Damore said. "With the economy so ascendant as an issue, energy is not getting the traction that it might in another cycle."
Indeed, the sputtering international credit market -- more than politics -- could hamstring the nuclear renewal. Industry executives are adamant that more federal subsidies are essential.
"A single plant is forecast to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 (billion) to $10 billion. You can see that the $18.5 billion (allocated to the nuclear loan guarantee program) doesn't go too far," said Robert Hornick, a senior director at credit rating firm Fitch. "The loan guarantees are going to be important if this country wants to kick-start its nuclear energy program."
McCain: No handouts
Despite his call for reactors, McCain opposes further subsidies. He voted against the 2005 energy bill, in part because of its rich subsidies for ethanol. The incentives in place for nuclear power are adequate, said campaign spokesman Peter A. Feldman.
"Sen. McCain's plan is not designed to be a handout to the industry," Feldman said. "Of course industry is always going to want more money."
In contrast to Obama, McCain supports nuclear waste reprocessing to help deal with the disposal issue. That's an expensive procedure not practiced in the United States because of concerns that waste could be diverted for use in nuclear weapons.
Despite his more guarded approach, Obama could be better for the nuclear revival, Westinghouse CEO Aris Candris said in an interview with the Tribune-Review earlier this year.
A Democratic administration could neutralize industry critics, he said.
"In general, if a more liberal administration stands up and says, 'We've thought through it, that's the way we're going to go, that's the best choice for the nation,' they will have more credibility with some of the skeptics than somebody that came in already committed to the idea," Candris said.
