The rising environmental and economic costs of fossil fuels are making nuclear power seem almost respectable, but its resurgence raises difficult questions, including several that are pertinent in Maine

The administration has pleased energy hawks by including incentives for producing nuclear energy in the new federal budget. It has proposed offering billions in loan guarantees to restart the nuclear power industry.

The White House budget proposal shuns the oil, coal and gas industries while promoting clean and renewable energy. Nuclear power is neither clean nor renewable, but it can generate electricity without emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Many see it as the ultimate solution to controlling greenhouse gases.

It sometimes described as clean, safe and reliable, but developing nuclear power has elements of risk ”“ radioactive elements. Although plant safety in the U.S. has been very good, no one can rule out the danger of a terrorist attack or meltdown. Radiation poses other risks as well. As recent testing in Vermont has shown, deterioration of equipment can lead to persistent leaks of radioactive elements. Water tests at monitoring wells near Vermont Yankee nuclear plant have revealed high levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen.

No doubt newer plants will be better designed to resist such problems, but after years of work, there is still no solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal. In fact, political opposition has apparently killed Nevada’s Yucca Mountain waste repository after investments totaling $38  billion.

Spent nuclear fuel can remain dangerous for hundreds, and even thousands of years. If vaults deep in a remote mountain can’t provide suitable storage, what can? This is a question that will be examined by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which is due to issue a final report within two years.

In the meantime, casks of high level nuclear waste continue to be stored where they were generated, including the site of the former Maine Yankee plant. It’s hard to imagine how any planning for nuclear development can move forward until this issue is entirely solved, and a blue ribbon commission is just the first step toward solving it.

Once the advisers have made their recommendations, the government, or the industry must actually establish safe, permanent storage. As planners look for remote, geologically stable sites for nuclear repositories, Maine might make the list. It happened once before.

Today’s energy and environmental problems are serious enough to justify a fresh appraisal of nuclear energy. But financing and construction of reactors should not be allowed to go forward until we are assured that the plants can be protected and the waste can be safely stored.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com or City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski at kristenm@journaltribune.com.