"WRONG MESSAGE"
In addition to those risks, some said both Obama and the former Bush administration had sent the wrong message about nuclear power to other countries.
Charles Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists, said certain criteria should be put in place before a country ventured into a nuclear power program -- "safety, security and safeguards," he said.
And nuclear power may not be the best option for all countries, he said, adding that natural gas may be a viable low-carbon alternative for some.
Still, most environmental organizations that released statements on Obama's State of the Union address praised the president's message, which, though, was mostly for pushing the Senate to pass a climate bill.
One exception was Greenpeace, saying in a statement that it was "disappointing to hear the president promote coal, offshore drilling, and nuclear power, since these forms of dirty energy are expensive distractions that stall the fight against climate change."
But organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation were among the groups that voiced their support of the president's address.
Ferguson of the Federation of American Scientists said he foresaw no large grassroot movements such as those that followed the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island catastrophes, although there might be more public debates next year when new nuclear facilities would apply for licensing.
Still, Walker of Global Green USA said nuclear power was in the long run unlikely to impact U.S. energy supplies. While 15 applications for 24 new nuclear power plants have been filed with the U.S. government since 2007, none of these is currently under construction, he noted.
And the financial markets are wary of taking on such high risk investments, he added.
Estimates indicate that it will take more than 300 billion U.S. dollars to replace current nuclear power plants, and the storage of nuclear waste will add another 100 billion dollars or more, he said.
Ferguson, however, said an increase in the number of U.S. nuclear power plants could create a windfall of high paying jobs not only for the college educated but also for highly skilled blue collar workers, such as welders, electricians and fire inspectors.
Workers could be trained at vocational schools or community colleges, which could certify students within a two-year time frame to work at nuclear energy facilities, he said.
And while those job possibilities could heighten Washington's interests in nuclear power in this worst economy since the 1930s, some political analysts said Obama's statements were meant to win Republican support for his climate change bill. But Democrats may find the president's nod to nuclear power hard to swallow, analysts said.
