Tuesday was an important day in the nation's journey back toward energy independence, as President Barack Obama announced the approval of $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to help the Southern Co. (SO) build a nuclear power plant in Georgia.

The Obama administration has made a large increase nuclear power a top priority in its energy policy, in an effort to play catch-up for the decades lost without a coherent energy policy and without the wholesale development of the proven and innovative nuclear technology. Incredibly, no new nuclear plants have been licensed in the United States since 1979.

Take a picture: The implementation of a rational, self-reliant energy policy for the United States may be underway.

The Obama administration is expected to triple loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to more than $54 billion in next year's budget, Bloomberg News reported Friday, citing two people familiar with the plan.

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.

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.

Many energy experts are looking to clean-burning coal as an alternative to crude. If that works out, the price of oil could come down as the US and other big countries like China move to the old source of energy that is becoming attractive again.

But the cost of getting clear-coal to market may be too high for it to be practical. According to The New York Times, "the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming."

Do those problems really rule coal out as a big source of energy? Maybe not. The decisions to fight dependence on oil may involve some very hard compromises. Oil-based energy hurts the environment. Ethanol drives up corn prices at a time when commodity inflation is already pushing food prices much higher.Governments and individuals are going to have to decide whether cutting the need for oil is worth additional pollution or whether $5 gas is a better way forward.

The same argument is beginning to move to nuclear power. There are fears that this source of energy may be too dangerous because nuclear power plants sometimes have dangerous leaks. But nuclear can provide a huge portion of the electricity needs of many nations, as France has already shown.

With oil at $120 or more, energy consumers can't have it both ways. The days of cheap energy are gone, and the age of cheap, clean energy may be years away. In between, the trade-offs are ugly.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The US government hopes that a large number of nuclear plants will be built in the US over the next 20 years to cut the country's need for oil. But GE (NYSE: GE) CEO Jeffrey Immelt says they will not be built without incentives from the Feds.

According to the FT, "Immelt said only five to 10 US nuclear power projects were likely to go ahead unless there was a carbon-pricing framework to create incentives for utilities to build more." That may be true, but GE should be quiet about championing aid for building those facilities. GE and Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) have a joint venture to build nuclear plants, and the parties would not want to be seen as sell-serving.

The comments raise a difficult issue. The government and utilities both know that the long-term future of cheap oil looks bad. But building nuclear plants take years, is expensive, and requires passing government safety standards. Over the next decade it may actually be cheaper to continue to use fossil fuels even it the price of oil stays high.

GE will make a lot of money on the move to nuclear fuel, but that does not mean that its call for government help is wrong.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Going into the IPO for EnergySolutions (NYSE: ES), there appeared to be quite a bit of demand. The shares priced at $23, which was above its $19-$21 range. Although in today's trading, the stock has barely moved.

EnergySolutions is a technology provider for the nuclear services industry. That is, the company helps with things like in-plant support services, operation of nuclear reactors, logistics, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D).

In fact, the D&D division has perhaps the most promise. Keep in mind that the U.S. government is in the process of shutting down a variety of old power plants. The cost could reach as much as $300 billion. What's more, it looks like the federal government will shell out $50 billion on the initiatives over the next couple years.

Security guards at an Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania were found sleeping on the job, according to media reports. The Chicago-based utility company said it dropped Wackenhut as security contractor for its Peach Bottom plant and is reviewing the security firm's work at other company reactors, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer,

This couldn't have come at a worst time for the nuclear power industry whose reputation has improved over the past few years as a lesser evil to global warming-causing coal-fired power plants. NRG Energy Inc. (NYSE: NRG) is even proposing to build its first nuclear power plant in almost 30 years. But every time the nuclear power industry takes one step forward, it takes two steps back.

In Exelon's case, the embarrassment was captured on video by another security guard over several months and sent to New York television station WCBS-TV, The Inquirer said. The incident, involving fewer than 10 workers, is investigated by the company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the paper said.

Exelon, of course, was mortified by the video.

"This is not acceptable and we will not tolerate it," said Exelon Generation Chief Operating Officer Chris Crane in a press release. "I want to be clear that nothing has happened at Peach Bottom that represents a security or safety threat to the public. We are dealing with unacceptable behavior, and we will fix it."

What's scary is that it's happened before. Workers were caught napping at the control room of the same nuclear power plant in the late 1980s, according to the New York Times.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.