The AP news report notices what we’ve been blogging about here often, that “nuclear energy becomes piviotal in the climate debate…” The article notes that there are:

“…104 power reactors in 31 states provide a fifth of the nation’s electricity while producing essentially carbon free power and no greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s something the nuclear industry has been pushing in advertising and in lobbying on Capitol Hill for nearly a decade. But only recently has it begun to resonate, not only among industry supporters, but some skeptics as well.

‘If you want to address climate change and produce electricity, nuclear has got to be a significant part of the equation,’ Marvin Fertel, president of Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, said in an interview.

Not unexpected from a top industry lobbyist. But the same is being heard from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, from a growing number of environmentalists, and from the White House where nuclear power otherwise has received tepid support.”

The article describes the upcoming energy bill well:

“The Senate this week will kick off three committee hearings on legislation to cap greenhouse gases from power plants and large industrial facilities, with an intent of cutting them about 80 percent by 2050. The House has already passed a bill. It’s chances in the Senate could hinge in part on whether demands by a handful of GOP senators for measures to help build new reactors are included in the bill…

Sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster, but hope compromises could be forged to bring uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans on board.”

We’d suggest that in addition to being good politics, including incentives to nuclear energy in this climate bill has the added benefit of being simply good policy.