Mark A.R. Kleiman knew he was challenging liberal orthodoxy last week when he posted an item on his weblog headlined "Bring back the nukes!"
The UCLA professor of public policy, an avowed liberal, braced himself for an onslaught of e-mail from a readership sure to be outraged at his call for an end to the nation's "anti-nuclear superstition." But the wave never broke.
"I've gotten a little critical mail and no hysterical mail," he told me the other day, still sounding slightly dazed. "I'm a little surprised at the support I got and the opposition I didn't get. I think it's the case that you can now restart the conversation."
Talking about nuclear energy as "green" power -- especially in comparison with coal-fueled generation -- is still a step that liberals take cautiously, especially with the Bush administration promoting a nuclear resurgence. Any Democratic politician going near the subject should probably keep a lead suit handy.
"Would I advise the [John F.] Kerry campaign to say something about it?" Kleiman says. "Probably not. But if I were advising President Kerry, that might be different."
Nuclear energy, of course, has been a pariah in this country for roughly three decades. This stems partially from how it was originally oversold as safe, clean and "too cheap to meter." Instead, we got multibillion-dollar cost overruns, horrifying price projections for safely disposing of radioactive waste and Three Mile Island.
All in all, nukes seemed to be a terrible bet in comparison with fossil-fueled power plants, which at least spewed pollutants that people could actually see and didn't carry the potential for blowing up or melting down. Concerns about the diversion of fissionable material from nuclear plants to weapons programs didn't help. The political obstacles to licensing plants turned off the financial community. Even now, most serious studies of the world's energy future start by dismissing nuclear energy out of hand, then move on to the (scanty) alternatives.
California's experience with nuclear power may not be uniquely discouraging, but it's hardly bright. The state launched the country's first civilian nuclear plant at Santa Susana in 1957. Its proud distinction as a pioneer lasted until the plant suffered a partial meltdown in 1959. (It was later dismantled.)
