POINT OF VIEW/ Daniel P. Aldrich: U.S. nuclear renaissance or still muddling through?

The 1,200 residents of Bruneau, Idaho, may well decide the future of American energy. The fate of a plan by Virginia-based Alternate Energy Holdings (AEH) to build a nuclear reactor near the community is being watched closely by the energy industry.

It is clear that some Bruneau residents will steadfastly oppose the building of a nuclear plant in their backyard. One local was quoted as saying: "Idaho doesn't need nuclear, and Idaho doesn't want nuclear."

Will this plan and the many other reactors being envisioned across the United States move ahead and usher in a new nuclear era? Or will they be defeated by lawsuits and other forms of resistance from citizen's groups? That ultimately depends on how well AEH and, more importantly, the United States government handles local residents.

Nuclear power has gained some support as a potential solution to the threat of global warming. Reactors could replace the United States' coal-fired plants.

While not as starry-eyed as the nuclear enthusiasts of the Atoms for Peace era, who believed in energy "too cheap to meter," proponents continue to focus on new technologies as a remedy for climate change. But simply building a better mouse trap does not necessarily get the public beating a path to your door. Technologies, even when they serve the public good, engender opposition when they put risk squarely on the shoulders of local communities.

Despite subsidies and grants to the industry itself, citizens facing the possibility of nuclear neighbors in cities like Bruneau, Cherokee County in South Carolina and Bellefonte in Alabama may follow in the footsteps of the Oklahoma residents who defeated proposals for the Black Fox Nuclear facility.

History and experiences abroad have demonstrated that successful nuclear power programs require unflagging government financial support. More importantly, they require some sort of policy for interacting with local groups and the citizens who often oppose the building of nuclear plants. How can this be achieved? Cases from abroad can shed light on America's nuclear future.

Japan and France have created the world's two most successful commercial nuclear power programs. Japan has built 52 reactors which provide one-third of Japan's electricity, despite Japan's traumatic experiences at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. France's nationalized energy utility EDF (Electricite de France) has 58 plants and meets 80 percent of that nation's needs. In fact, France sells excess electricity to nearby nations.

Although the nuclear industries in both countries have benefited from standardized reactor designs that allow engineers and operators to move from one plant to another easily, technology alone does not explain their success. Both nations have demonstrated long-term commitment to their nuclear programs. In Japan's case, this has meant funneling millions of dollars each year into host communities and supporting the siting, research, and design efforts of utilities. In France's case, the government has provided extensive financial and administrative help to EDF.

In handling resistance from civil society, the Japanese government has tended to resort to "carrots" such as public relations campaigns and strong financial incentives for potential opponents such as fishermen and farmers. France, meanwhile, has regularly used the "sticks" of coercion: expropriation and suppression. The U.S. government has not attempted to engage broader civil society over the issue of nuclear power using either approach.

The emerging consensus on global warming may make some fence straddling opponents, including potential host communities, acquiesce. Still, ardent environmentalists have opposed less controversial facilities, including wind turbines. NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yardism) has helped stoke opposition to sequestering carbon gases in sea beds off Hawaii and attempts to address the long-standing problem of nuclear waste disposal at the Yucca Mountain repository still face stiff resistance from Nevada.

During the 1970s, American citizens groups forced regulators to start ratcheting up safety requirements for nuclear plants and therefore drastically increased the price of construction. Today, vague appeals to a "greater good" will not be sufficient. The way regulators and utilities handle residents will decide if we enter a nuclear renaissance, or continue to muddle through.

* * *

Daniel P. Aldrich is assistant professor of political science at Purdue University. He is the author of the book "Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West" (Cornell University Press, 2008 and due to be published in Japanese by Sekaishisosha Co. in 2010.)