A study by the industry-supported Electric Power Research Institute says 45 new reactors are needed by 2030. The Energy Information Administration puts the number at 70. An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes 180 new reactors by 2050 for an 80 percent decline in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has applications for 30 new reactors. Only a few probably would be built over the next decade, the earliest in 2016 - and then only with the government guaranteeing the private financing.

Democratic sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. They hope a compromises could bring along uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans. Along with talk of opening more waters to oil drilling, support for nuclear energy is seen as the carrot that might attract Republicans.

The prospects of such a compromise appeared to brighten recently when Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), the climate bill’s principle sponsor, and Graham collaborated on a new bid to build consensus. “Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets,” they wrote. They called for ending “cumbersome regulations that have stalled” new reactors, measures to help utilities secure financing and expanded research to resolve the waste problem.

They outlined a framework that other Republicans might follow. GOP senators such as McCain, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, have shown an interest in climate legislation - if nuclear energy plays a greater part.

To many environmentalists, it remains a choice of dealing with one overriding environmental problem, while accepting another, to some degree. “You can’t dismiss nuclear power’s potential as a climate solution,” says Susan Vancko of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Yet, she says, with reactors costing upward to $10 billion apiece, “this is one of the most expensive options out there” to cut greenhouse gases. Vancko cautions against providing “almost unlimited loan guarantees” for reactors that could go bust.

A group of 14 environmental and anti-nuclear groups expressed concern in a recent letter to senators that easing licensing requirements and rushing to build new plants “would fatally undermine public confidence in the safety of U.S. reactors.”

Atop the nuclear industry’s wish list – twenty-six items covering two single-line typewritten pages — is an expansion of loan guarantees for new reactors. It also mentions eliminating some speed bumps in the road to reactor licensing, new efforts to deal with reactor waste and an array of other items. Some are in the Senate bill; others are likely to be added.

The goals of those calling for aggressive action on climate change have become intertwined with those pushing for more nuclear energy. “I don’t think it gets you there alone,” industry official Fertel says about nuclear’s role in combating global warming. “But you can’t get there without it.”