President Barack Obama’s interest in nuclear power has kicked off a new national debate on the industry, and it’s about time. The last U.S. nuclear power plant to be built came on line decades ago, and advances in technology since then make some earlier objections obsolete.

But two familiar issues remain: the overall cost of nuclear generation and the safe, long-term storage of waste. Obama and Congress need to resolve these challenges before making nuclear power a major part of a national energy policy designed to reduce the risk of climate change.

Even now, the United States produces more electricity from nuclear power plants than any other nation in the world. But the total output of the 104 reactors amounts to only 20 percent of the nation’s electrical needs. Many European countries have been more aggressive in pursuing nuclear power, including France, which has 58 plants generating 76 percent of its power. Worldwide, there are just over 400 plants producing 15 percent of the world’s energy.

Obama has backed away slightly from his campaign promise to “find ways to safely harness nuclear power.” But nuclear power remains very much on the table. Some members of Congress advocate building up to an additional 100 nuclear power plants.

Construction costs are one barrier. It’s interesting that Republicans are nuclear power’s greatest proponents, given that federal loan guarantees of $10 billion to $17 billion per plant would have to be part of any deal. Obama is cautious about promising a huge investment, given the deficit, until more questions are resolved. The time it takes to build a plant adds to the challenge, since the makeup of Congress can shift significantly every two years, perhaps threatening support for plants already under construction.

The other major stumbling block is radioactive waste.

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains the only accident in commercial nuclear power involving fatalities. The development of smaller, simpler plants envisioned now should reduce the security concerns associated with the monster plants built 30 years ago. But the nagging problem of what to do with the waste remains.

Nevada’s Yucca Mountain had been identified as a national repository for nuclear waste, but Obama has taken that off the table. Spent radioactive fuel rods now are stored at or near nuclear plants across the country, sometimes closer to water supplies than anyone would like. Each plant generates about 20 metric tons of radioactive waste every year. The cleanup of leaking tanks with radioactive contaminants at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington — situated precariously near the Columbia River — is estimated to cost a minimum of $77 billion and perhaps as much as $100 billion.

The United States has to develop alternative energy sources that will reduce reliance on Middle East oil and cut carbon emissions. Nuclear power needs to be back on the table — but a solution to waste storage must be found before new construction begins, and the revival of the industry must be proven cost effective.

The above editorial was originally published March 16 by the San Jose Mercury News. Content was made available by MCT Campus.