When the No. 1 reactor at Browns Ferry in Athens, Ala., begins spinning electrons into electricity this month, it will mark the first nuclear power plant to go online in the United States since 1996.

With the specter of global warming looming and warnings that carbon-dioxide emissions must be cut by 50 percent by 2050, more plants could follow.

Proponents say that nuclear energy is clean energy, and that the United States has little choice but to follow the lead of other countries and build more plants to contend with growing electricity demands.

"You're not going to power Columbus, Ohio, on a wind farm," said Bill Madia, executive vice president of Battelle. "There's no hydroelectric power in Columbus and look what is happening to corn prices."

Battelle is overseeing Department of Energy efforts to develop advanced technologies. Madia said more than 130 nuclear plant projects are being planned or are under construction worldwide.

In a report on energy needs and climate change that will be released Tuesday in Washington, Battelle argues that the role of nuclear power must be expanded.

"This is truly a no-choice decision. There is no way to sustain our way of living," Madia said.

Even coal-rich American Electric Power is keeping an open mind on nuclear plants as Congress considers caps on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

"It is not something we would rule out in the future in a carbon-constrained environment," AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp said.

The reactor at Browns Ferry, one of three, was operated in the 1970s but was shut down in the 1980s for safety reasons. When restarted, it will become the 104th operating commercial reactor in the United States. There are two in Ohio, Davis-Besse in Ottawa County, and Perry in Lake County.

In all, the plants provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering several applications for plants, and the Energy Department has estimated that as many as 50 new reactors might be needed by 2030.

It's not difficult to find critics.

The Sierra Club said it prefers alternatives such as solar and wind energy, said Ellen Hawkey, conservation program manager for the group's Ohio chapter.

"Nuclear power is not safe, affordable or clean," she said.

Madia said that in order to spark a nuclear rejuvenation, the federal government must guarantee loans for new plants, continue to provide insurance for nuclear plants and cut the 10-year regulatory approval process in half.

President Bush has appointed a nuclear power czar and Congress is considering spending $2.2 billion on new reactor development.

Gov. Ted Strickland is not opposed to nuclear power, provided any proposed plant has community support and is safe, according to a spokesman.

Safety is always an issue, and critics point to the 1979 near-disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and a shutdown at Davis-Besse in 2002 when acid nearly ate through the reactor vessel.

New technology and oversight has improved, proponents say, since the 1986 deadly explosion and fire at the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union.

That might not be good enough, however, said Phillip F. Schewe, an energy expert at the American Institute of Physics.

"When you open the hood of your car and want to add oil, no matter how careful you are, you're going to get grimy," he said. "The way I see it, when you crack atoms apart in high-pressure vessels, you are going to spread some of the radioactivity around."

Conservation, energy-efficient appliances, as well as advances in wind, solar and other alternative technologies make more sense, Schewe said.

Dan Sprau, a professor of environmental health and a radiation specialist at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., said building smaller, community plants -- about one-tenth the size of current plants -- is a good idea.

Still, Sprau said convincing everyone that nuclear power is the answer will be a tough sell.

"There's a risk in everything. A lot of people don't realize there's a risk from burning fossil fuels," he said. "We have people dying in war because we want to protect the energy supply. What is the trade-off?"

mlafferty@dispatch.com

---

• Ohio politicians support a nuclear-waste recycling facility at Piketon uranium plant B5