Nuclear power is coming back into style, and perhaps just in time for the climate, and for the United States.

Environmental groups, previously opposed to nuclear power, are starting to support the technology, as it represents the lesser of two evils compared to coal-fired electric power generation plants, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. And the choice is obvious enough: faced with either processing nuclear waste or seeing the atmosphere heat up to irreversible levels, via coal-producing climate change, nuclear technology wins.

From the this-is-long-overdue department, legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate would allocate as much as $20 billion in federal funds over 10 years to develop energy technology and double the nation's nuclear power output, Bloomberg News reported.

Legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, would offer $100 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear plants, which would amount to a $10 billion federal government liability. The bill would also fund research in solar energy, carbon capture, and other energy technologies.

There's perhaps no better example of how much the world has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago and the end of the Cold Ware shortly thereafter, than the following: an American flips a switch to turn on a light in his or her home and the power came from where?

The Soviet Union.

That's right: from the Soviet Union. Unknown to many Americans, about 10% of the electricity in the United States is generated by fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, including Soviet-era ones, The New York Times reported. Today, 45% of the fuel in American nuclear reactors stems from former Russian bomb material.

Rare is the day I'll sell an electric power generation play, particularly nuclear power. Unlike France, the United States frittered away an opportunity to create a 21st century power generation system 30 years ago, and it will now play catch-up for 20 years, and nuclear will be a part of the solution.

Entergy Corp. (NYSE: ETR), the second largest nuclear power generator in the U.S., will be a part of that mix. It is performing as expected, which is why I'm reiterating my Buy rating for the company's shares, first recommended on May 12, 2009 at a price of $74.31.

The market giveth and the market taketh away -- all in the same day. I was looking at how Shaw Group (NYSE: SGR) performed on Thursday. The company, an engineering firm that provides services relating to the energy and environmental industry for both the government and the private sector, was up 5.6% at the close of trading yesterday, powered by superb volume. But, in the after-hours session, it went down nearly 6.4%.

And, yes, the sell-off was on the back of an earnings report. For the third quarter, Shaw Group made 57 cents per share, excluding its acquisition of Westinghouse. The company made 67 cents per share in last year's similar quarter, also adjusted for the acquisition. Net sales were essentially flat.

This post is part of a series in which TheStockAdvisors.com asked financial experts to name their top stock pick if McCain or if Obama wins the election.

"John McCain has said that nuclear power must be part of a plan to address climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil; to benefit from this plan, buy Shaw Group (NYSE: SGR), which constructs and maintains nuclear power plants," says Paul Tracy in his Street Authority Market Advisor.

"Today, nearly half of U.S. electricity is created via conventional coal-fired plants. This made sense for us for decades -- coal is so cheap and plentiful here that the United States is often referred to as the Saudi Arabia of coal.

"However, in the past few years, the tide of public sentiment has shifted against the energy source. Primarily this is due to the emissions created by burning coal for electricity.

"In addition to the well known release of carbon dioxide, coal emissions also contain traces of mercury. On top of that, the rise of China and other emerging markets has led to higher costs for coal.

"So with a public that is increasingly interested in alternative sources of electricity and a president who is committed to increasing nuclear power usage, the companies that build and maintain nuclear plants sit in the perfect position to benefit.

"In particular, I think Louisiana-based Shaw Group is a stock to watch. SGR's largest end market is the construction and maintenance of power plants, including both plants fired by fossil fuels and nuclear facilities.

"The company also owns a 20% stake in Westinghouse Electric, one of the world's leading designers and builders of nuclear power plants.

This post is part of a series in which TheStockAdvisors.com asked financial experts to name their top stock pick if McCain or if Obama wins the election.

"If McCain is elected, we would suggest USEC (NYSE: USU); after slumbering for over 20 years, nuclear power is quickly emerging from hibernation and will be satisfying a much larger percentage of the nation's energy-hungry appetite during McCain administration," says value investor Nathan Slaughter, editor of Half-Priced Stocks.

"Currently, there are 104 nuclear plants in operation nationwide, which combined, account for 20% of the country's electricity. But both of those totals are set to rise markedly. Current forecasts suggest nuclear facilities could double their share and ultimately account for 40% of power in the U.S.

"There are several factors underpinning this resurgence in nuclear energy, not the least of which is $100 per barrel oil and elevated prices for natural gas and coal.

"Believe it or not, one kilogram of uranium-235 has the stored energy equivalent of 1,500 tons of coal. And while up-front construction expenses can be high, ongoing operating costs for nuclear reactors are running just $15-20 per megawatt hour, far cheaper than traditional plants.

"John McCain is an outspoken champion for the nuclear power movement, outlining ambitious plans to commit $315 billion towards the construction of 45 new reactors over the next two decades.

"Beyond that, he has a clear goal of achieving energy independence by building '100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.'

"All of this spells plenty of opportunity for USEC, owner of the nation's only uranium enrichment facility. The company is in the business of supplying fuel for commercial reactors around the world -- and competition is sparse.

"The firm also benefits from a longstanding nuclear non-proliferation treaty with Russia. Specifically, USEC participates in the salvaging of old Soviet nuclear warheads under the 'Megatons to Megawatts' program.

"The company has carved out a dominant market share and now supplies about half of the nation's enriched uranium (most of the rest comes from Russia).

This post is part of a series in which TheStockAdvisors.com asked financial experts to name their top stock pick if McCain or if Obama wins the election.

"McCain has been a strong supporter of nuclear power and his energy plan calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants in the U.S. by 2030; our pick for a McCain victory is uranium miner Paladin Resources (Toronto: PDN)," says Elliott Gue in The Energy Strategist.

"McCain's plan would represent by far the most significant build-out of nuclear plants in more than three decades. He has an ultimate goal of building 100 new U.S. reactors. America's 104 existing plants account for about 20% of electricity generation.

"The U.S. is not the only country in the world considering a major expansion in nuclear power. Russia, India and China have already committed to a major expansion of their nuclear energy capacity. And nuclear is also enjoying a renaissance in other developed markets such as the U.K. and Italy.

"The main fuel for nuclear plants is uranium. Last year, mined uranium supplies only covered about 64% of global uranium demand; to make up the difference, utilities tapped secondary sources such as stockpiles and reprocessed nuclear warheads.

"But, secondary supplies are expected to decline sharply in coming years and the Megatons to Megawatts program for reprocessing Russian nuclear weapons into power plant fuel ends in 2013. Therefore, mined supply will have to ramp up to meet rapidly growing demand.

"The positive side to any correction is that it brings valuations down to earth for stocks you may have thought were out of your reach," says Genia Turanova.

The contributing editor to Stephen Leeb's The Complete Investor explains, the "Along with the energy sell-off, unregulated utilities have declined even more-to bargain levels." Here's a look at Florida-based FPL Energy (NYSE: FPL).

"FPL is one of our favorite alternative energy holdings. And with the recent selloff, its yield once again qualify the stock as a legitimate full-fledged income plays.

"And as its quarterly results indicate, the unregulated utility is relatively immune to the nation's slowdown, making them among the surest growers in the marketplace today.

"The skies over the Sunshine State have been quite dark because of the housing sector's woes and the subsequent credit crunch. As a result, the Florida-based company's adjusted earnings per share increased 'only' 8% on a year-over-year basis.

The United States is a nation whose electric power generation system and grid is becoming increasing inadequate, even as the nation grapples with another energy problem -- the $4 per gallon gasoline era.

Moreover, an economic slowdown and a relatively mild summer have to-date reduced the typical electric load electric power generation plants would face, but that respite will end when the U.S. economy starts to expand at a healthy rate again. And when it does, electric power demand will increase.

What's one model the United States could follow to generate more electricity while the same time reducing coal-based pollution and climate change? France.

That's right: France. Nuclear power is experiencing a mild comeback in the United States, with 34 new reactor applications on file at the U.S.'s Nuclear Regulatory Agency. In France, it never left. Further, had the United States followed the French model, the U.S. would be vastly more energy self-sufficient today.

France: liberty, fraternity, equality, fission

Nuclear power never went out of style in France, and for this reason France is decades ahead of the United States -- and much of the world, for that matter -- regarding energy self-sufficiency, The New York Times reported. An astounding 77% of France's electricity comes from its 58 nuclear power plants, and it is a net-exporter of electricity to Europe. The United States has 104 nuclear power plants, which account for only 19.4% of its generated electricity, according to U.S. Department of Energy data, The Times reported.

That the developing and developed world will need considerably more electricity in the decades ahead would not surprise most investors / readers.

That both economic zones can achieve this goal while adding a minimal amount of soot to the atmosphere, however, would.

And the technology that will undoubtedly serve as a key energy-generation component in emerging markets' 21st century power grid? You guessed it: nuclear power -- the power generation form that has lagged in the United States for more than 20 years, due to environmental regulations.

China, India push forward with plant plans

China and India are two emerging market nations that recognize that nuclear power is an essential part of meeting future electricity demand. Nuclear power will account for more than 5% of China's power output by 2020, Bloomberg News reported Monday. Meanwhile, India will start three nuclear reactors this year.

Economist Glen Langan said that while nuclear power is not, strictly speaking, a renewable energy, it has to be considered as part of the next-generation energy mix [along with wind and solar power] to meet the U.S.'s growing demand for electricity.

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

Almost on cue, following oil's $12 rise in two days to $134, the International Energy Agency said the world needs to invest an additional $45 trillion in the decades ahead to vastly expand both nuclear power and wind power capacity to meet global energy needs.

Strictly speaking, the IEA's call to action was rooted in reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions and achieving what it argues will be "a clean, clever, energy future" and not to move away from oil or fossil fuels solely on cost grounds. (pdf)

Still, the report's 2050 ETP Baseline scenario projects that CO2 emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70% - - the latter total being equal to five times Saudi Arabia's current oil production. If the IEA's oil projection is correct, that would suggest additional large increases in the price of oil in the decades ahead - - on top of oil's more than 400% price rise since 2001.

Clean coal has hit speed bump on the path to the nation's cleaner energy future.

The United States Government has canceled support for a clean coal demonstration project after the project's development costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, citing the need to limit taxpayer exposure, according to a New York Times report.

Further, more than a decade into the research process, it remains an unanswered question whether the clean coal technology -- capturing and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground -- can be executed in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Among other hurdles, scientists need to determine which soil formations are most environmentally appropriate for holding and organically processing the carbon dioxide, and that don't contain the risk of dioxide bubbling back to the surface, or polluting ground water.