Going back over the course of the last 28 years, taking a position against nuclear power has been quite easy. The partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island in the spring of 1979 was all the evidence that most people needed to be convinced that nuclear power was indeed more dangerous than advertised. And if that wasn't enough, then the tragic nuclear accident at the Chernobyl plant in Russia only seven years later certainly closed the case.

Taken together, the ramifications these two incidents were enough to end the growth of nuclear power here in the United States. In fact, since that fateful event in Pennsylvania in 1979, no new nuclear plants have been ordered, although previously approved plants have come online since then.

But despite the long shadow cast by those huge cooling towers in Pennsylvania, the time that has elapsed since then has given a new birth to the industry that so many have grown to fear. Nuclear power, it seems, has come back from the grave in the U.S.

In fact, according to a report by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), applications to build as many as 23 new plants in the U.S. are expected to be submitted in 2007 alone. Additionally, virtually every one of the 103 existing nuclear plants is expected to renew its original 40-year operating license for another 20 years.

Given our long memories and disdain for all things nuclear, how could this happen?

The answer, it seems, is simple: our fears of global warming and terrorism have combined to overcome our misgivings about the dangers of the technology. In view of these new global realities, nuclear power just makes more and more sense-even if it does make for some strange political bedfellows.

After all, our energy dilemma is inescapable and borders on crisis. At current levels, America guzzles more than 14 million barrels a day of foreign crude and petroleum products. Add to that the massive increase in energy use by both China and India, and the results are clear-the world must somehow find a way to produce the oil equivalent of over two Saudi Arabias in the next 20 years, just to meet the predicted uptick in demand.

Even more worrisome than a supply squeeze, however, is where it all comes from. To feed our thirst for oil, we are increasingly at the mercy of corrupt and dangerous regimes. In fact, a quick look at our list of current suppliers reads more like rogue's gallery than a list of trusted friends.

Along with other nations, characters like Iran's Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Chavez readily recognize our weakened position and are more than willing to use their profits from the high price of oil to conspire against us.

Even our supposed friend, Saudi Arabia, has used its oil riches to funnel over $75 billion to aid the spread of virulent Wahhabism around the world. It is a dangerous treadmill to be sure, since our own oil addiction provides the very funds that are eventually used by the terrorists who work to destroy us.

The combination of these two factors has led to increasing support for nuclear power here at home-especially from conservatives. They argue that not only will nuclear power help solve our future supply problems, but it will also lessen our dependence on foreign oil and weaken our terrorist enemies.

Joining these conservatives at the nuclear table, though, are some unlikely allies-Democrats. Along with the idea that nuclear power can reduce our dependence on foreign enemies, Democrats have added another twist. Surprisingly, they now argue that electricity generated from nuclear power could be key to reducing the harmful emissions that cause global warming.

In fact, these proponents argue that since nuclear power produces no emissions, some 682 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were prevented from the entering the environment by nuclear plants in 2005 alone. That's the equivalent of the annual emissions from 96% of the country's passenger cars.

It's these pollution-eliminating figures that have managed to win over several environmentalists. Among them is Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, who now believes that nuclear power is worth another look.

These factors, and the increasing levels of safety with the advent of new technologies, have combined to give the Dick Cheneys and Patrick Moores of the political world a seat at the same controversial table. Some election observers even believe that the promotion of nuclear power has the potential to be a big issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. If that happens, it will be a stunning reversal of fortune for an industry that had to fight tooth and nail just to survive over the last two decades.

But as the political realities spur a nuclear power rebound here at home, we will merely be catching up to the rest of the world. Because while America allowed its nuclear industry to wither on the vine out of fear, the rest of the world moved ahead. As we cowered, others built.

According to the NEI, since the scare at Three Mile Island some 247 nuclear power plants have come online outside of the U.S. And 29 more plants are being built overseas at present.

In fact, nuclear power is so important to the world's energy supply that ten nations get at least 40% of their electrical power from nuclear reactors. France leads the way with nearly 79%.

With the new realities both abroad and in Washington, DC, the U.S. seems destined to return to its nuclear powered past-even if it means getting past our fears from 28 years ago. In Part Two we'll take a deeper look at how we might get there.

Wishing you happiness, health, and wealth,

Steve Christ, Editor