Many environmentalists – and some Wiscasset residents – breathed a sigh of relief when Maine Yankee, the state’s only nuclear power plant, closed in 1997. The plant began operating in 1972 and produced 119 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity over its life. But its old age was troubling; thanks to the courage of whistle-blowers, federal regulators learned of cracked steam generator tubes and defective welds, leading to a loss in public confidence in the facility’s safety. Maine Yankee was finally mothballed, which seemed to coincide with the decline of the nuclear power age in the U.S.

But with the nation’s recent daunting energy challenges inspiring new thought, nuclear power is back on the table. It has been decades since a nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. Any proposal to build a plant in Maine would likely see public outcry exponentially greater than the opposition to liquefied natural gas terminals. Yet, ironically, there has been very little opposition to the prospect of two nuclear power plants being built just over the Maine border in New Brunswick.

The Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station has been operating since the early 1980s, which has a production capacity of 650 megawatts of electricity. Last year, a $1.4 billion contract was awarded to refurbish the plant that will extend its operation by another 30 years. At the same time, the province is investigating building a second reactor on the site, which is about 35 miles from Maine’s border.

The province is aiming to become an energy exporter for the Canadian Maritimes and possibly New England, with a third of its electricity coming from nuclear plants, a third from fossil fuels and hydropower, and a third from renewables such as wind power.

Some energy experts believe smaller, more efficient and safer nuclear power plants could be built. While the U.S. turned its back on nuclear power, some European countries have continued to build new plants. In France, 75 percent of electricity is generated by nuclear plants. Yet nuclear is not universally embraced on the continent; Germany began phasing out nuclear power in 2003.

The key reason to oppose a return to nuclear power remains what it always has been: if something goes wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic and long-lasting. Disposing of spent fuel will always be politically difficult, despite the reassurances of scientists that it can be safely stored. And in the post-Sept. 11 world nuclear material poses yet another risk by being targeted by terrorists for use in a dirty bomb. The Maine Yankee site, where 900 tons of high-level waste is stored, is protected around the clock by armed guards.

And lastly, nuclear power may not make sense financially. The plants require a massive investment to build, they are not cheap to operate and maintain, and they have relatively short lifespans. While it makes sense to rethink a blanket opposition to nuclear power, there are other frontiers that show more promise.