The nation soon may be taking a second look at an energy source it turned its back on many years ago.

Growing fear about fossil fuels and their link to global warming has national and state leaders searching for new, reliable and cheap sources of energy.

And in that searching, more and more elected officials, business leaders and utility companies are discovering that nuclear power might just be the solution.

Come again?

Nuclear?

The power source that generated headlines about radiation leaks at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the 1970s and 1980s?

Believe it.

"Nuclear is the source of energy for the future," said Charles Bayless, president of West Virginia University Institute of Technology and a former power utility executive. "When people hear the work 'nuclear,' they automatically think about Chernobyl. But we have to go nuclear."

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts the role of nuclear power in energy generation will only increase between now and 2030. That's because the plants are considered clean despite the fact that spent uranium fuel cells are highly radioactive and remain so for thousands of years.

In fact, according to the EIA's most recent energy forecast, nuclear power will generate 9.33 quadrillion Btus by 2030, up from 8.13 quadrillion Btus in 2005.

While that's a little less than a 1 percent increase over 25 years, the important thing to remember is the United States hasn't opened a new nuclear reactor since 1996.

So that increase in the role of nuclear power means three things: expanding the power generating capabilities at existing plants, recommissioning shutdown reactors or even building new nuclear power plants.

Already, the U.S. Department of Energy has about a dozen requests from companies that want to build new nuclear plants in America.

But chances are pretty high none of those plants will be built in West Virginia.

At least not right now.

Nukes Banned in Coal Country

Back in 1996, West Virginia's Legislature passed a law that would ban the construction of nuclear plants in the state.

The law, sponsored by Delegate Paul Prunty, D-Marion, banned the construction of any nuclear power plant, factory or electric-generating plant in the state until such a facility can be proven safe and the nation has a facility to dispose of the radioactive waste.

The law was relatively short -- just two pages. But its message is clear. Nuclear is one kind of energy the state doesn't want to be involved in.

"The Legislature finds and declares that the use of nuclear fuels and nuclear power poses an undue hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state of West Virginia," the law states.

Will that law remain?

That's a good question. Several months ago, the state's Public Energy Authority started moving forward on a goal by Gov. Joe Manchin to become completely energy independent by 2030.

But right now, nuclear-power is not an option in that mix, according to Manchin spokeswoman Lara Ramsburg. She said while the governor knows nuclear power is important to other states, he doesn't believe it needs to be part of West Virginia's energy-independent future.

"Nuclear power is not part of what the state is working on," she said. "We have other resources in our state to look at."

A Popular Energy Source

So why is nuclear gaining popularity?

One simple reason: The plants can create a large amount of energy but do not emit greenhouse gases as a byproduct of that process.

A recent United Nations report linked the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane with global warming. All plants that use fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, emit greenhouse gases.

So if the U.S. follows in the footsteps of other nations to reduce those gas emissions, it almost certainly will have to look at either nuclear power or renewable energy.

The International Atomic Energy Association and U.S. Energy Information Administration said nuclear power provided 16 percent of the world's electricity with 443 units operating in 30 countries. About 80 percent of France's electricity comes from nuclear power, according to Bayless.

America is the largest generator of nuclear powered electricity in the world. Right now, the U.S. has 66 nuclear plants with 104 operable reactors in 31 states. Pennsylvania is home to five reactors, including the infamous Three Mile Island plant that had a partial core meltdown in 1979. Ohio and Virginia have two nuclear power plants each; Maryland has one.

While Three Mile Island and the 1986 explosion at the Ukraine's Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant still ring like scary alarm clocks whenever some people hear the word nuclear, the average citizen is beginning to see less of a threat from the power source.

Back in July, the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg Poll questioned 1,478 American adults about nuclear power. About 61 percent said they would support an increase if it helped to address global warming. About 30 percent said they opposed expansion, while the remaining 9 percent did not know enough to answer the question.

A similar Gallup Poll conducted in May showed 55 percent of Americans favored expanding the use of nuclear energy. About 40 percent opposed it. Five years earlier, only 41 percent of Americans wanted to see more nuclear power, while 51 percent opposed it.

Environmental Concerns

Still, many people don't relish the idea of having a nuclear plant open in their neighborhood, county or even state.

"What if an accident happens? How big of an area in the Ukraine is uninhabitable now because of the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant?" asked Vivian Stockman, outreach coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.

Bayless, who has a long history of working with nuclear plants, said modern-design plants that would be built now do not have the risk of a core melt-down. They are constructed differently than the plants at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

"In the new ones, they won't melt," he said.

That, however, doesn't address the problem with disposing of the waste the plants generate -- specifically the plant's spent fuel rods, which are full of enriched uranium and radioactive waste that lasts for generations. They can't just be dumped in a garbage can like a couple of old batteries. Even clothes and tools used inside the plants are radioactive and considered toxic.

Right now, there is no good way to dispose of that waste. According to the EIA, current federal regulations require spent fuel to be stored in specially designed dry storage containers or in large pools that look like swimming pools. The pools use water to both cool the fuel and act as a radiation shield.

But soon there may be another disposal option. In 2002, the federal government approved the creation of a high-level long-term disposal site inside a mountain in Nevada. Yucca Mountain, as the site is known, would be a completely secure place to store the radioactive waste where it would not be disturbed.

That's little comfort to people who see nuclear as a dangerous fix for the nation's energy addiction.

"We've got to think ahead about our kids and what they are going to deal with," said Chuck Nelson, also of OVEC.

But Bayless said the actual waste from a nuclear plant is quite small.

"One large nuclear plant every year will produce about one cubic liter of waste," he said. "No energy source is without waste or environmental impacts."