In the case of General Electric, the Asian giant certainly is a lucrative potential client where business deals do not have to be heavily scrutinized by lawmakers and NGOs.

"We have what's called the say-do ratio ... and China's is one of the best in the world," said Andrew White, chief executive of GE Nuclear Energy, the business conglomerate's nuclear power arm, which is largely engaged in the design and construction of plants.

"When (the Chinese government) says it will be done, it's done," White told United Press international.

White acknowledged the situation in the United States was not so straightforward, as corporate executives and engineers have to address fears held by environmentalists and local communities over the potential hazards of nuclear energy and its waste products.

Chinese authorities, on the other hand, do not have to deal with opposition from outside groups, so most analysts agree the country's plan to build about one nuclear reactor a year likely will go ahead.

In the United States, however, non-governmental organizations and activists remain opposed to building reactors - they point to the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 in Pennsylvania - and, in fact, a new reactor has not been built in the United States for the past two decades, and a new order for a reactor has not been seen in in 32 years.

Fears about the risks of nuclear energy, however, are unwarranted, White argued, and pointed out nuclear power plants have some of the best safety records among industrial sites.

Nuclear worries are based on a "bad history ... and myth" that do not reflect reality, White added.

Nuclear energy already accounts for more than 20 percent of electricity generated in the United States and produces no dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. That energy generation level would be reduced to below 15 percent within the next 10 years, however, if no new facilities are built by then.

But given the current world oil situation, momentum may be building at just the right time for the nuclear lobby to push ahead plans to construct more nuclear reactors in the United States.

Oil prices are climbing and the race to secure new fossil fuel sources among nations is on, so all but the most strident of environmentalists acknowledge that industrialized nations must try to develop alternative energy sources to replace some petroleum dependence.

In his latest speech on U.S. energy policy last month, President George W. Bush made a point of advocating nuclear power as a viable energy source and said he was committed to seeing more reactors being built in the United States, even though environmental groups caution that beyond the question of safety, storing nuclear waste is an even more difficult issue.

"Nuclear power has been lost to a whole generation. We need to pay attention to it," especially as the immediate answers to meeting near-term energy needs include an increase in oil imports or using more coal, said Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Congress continues to debate the energy bill and the Bush administration has made clear that to secure the steady flow of nuclear energy it will boost subsidies to the industry and offer risk guarantees so that if plans construction of a nuclear plant were canceled, investors would not completely lose out.

"We're not looking for handouts ... we're look for incentives and backstops as needed," White said.

It is, of course, not cheap to construct a reactor, with an average plant costing at least $2 billion.

"I'm agnostic about (nuclear) safety," said Jerry Taylor, director of natural resources studies at the the libertarian Cato Institute. He added it was likely nuclear power generation and waste disposal management could be kept under control but said it didn't make much sense to construct new reactors for economic reasons.

"There's a glut of power nationwide ... and the problem now is dealing with excess generated capacity, with only some parts of the region facing shortages," Taylor said.

"There has been so much investment into electricity generation over the years, it's hard (for nuclear power companies) to make an argument" for more reactors to be built.

Under such circumstances, Taylor said it was not necessary for the government to intervene to get nuclear power companies to start building reactors in the United States.

Instead, companies should look simply to private investments for financing and "leave it to the markets" to decide whether building more reactors makes sense or not, he added.

All rights reserved. � 2005 United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of United Press International.

Related Links
TerraDaily
Search TerraDaily
Subscribe To TerraDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only