John Grossenbacher, director of Idaho National Laboratory, which conducts nuclear research, said financing is a challenge for the atomic industry and that federal subsidies are needed to jump-start construction of the next generation of power plants.

Critics argue that money being offered to power providers is corporate welfare helping nuclear compete with cheaper sources of electricity.

"The industry has yet to be able to stand on its own two feet after 50 years," Vanessa Pierce, director of the watchdog group HEAL Utah, said of the economics of nuclear power.

A 2003 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology acknowledges that nuclear is not economically competitive now, but that could change depending on how concerned governments become about global warming.

The Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program - which received $65 million in 2006 - is designed to share costs between government and industry in locating sites for future reactors.

Grossenbacher said economic incentives are needed because investors may be worried about the high startup costs - some estimates range up to $2 billion per plant - and potentially long delays before a nuclear power plant comes on line.

Financial incentives are designed to produce a few new commercial reactors and encourage future groups to build more nuclear power plants, he said.

This is just the latest example of subsidies for an economically unsound industry, said Michele Boyd, a nuclear expert with the nonprofit group Public Citizen.

"Why waste more money on a highly subsidized industry?" Boyd asked. "Why not take the money and put it into something that can make a difference?"

Pierce said 2005 federal legislation that provided $13 billion in nuclear subsidies far overshadowed the money offered for any other carbon-free power source, like wind or solar.

The MIT report supported some level of financial incentive for the first utility companies that build safer reactors to pave the way for other commercial reactors.

While incentives are still needed, nuclear is becoming more competitive with other power sources, such as wind and solar, said Grossenbacher. When compared to current electricity workhorses, like coal-fired power plants, nuclear could look even better in the future.

Concerns over global warming may drive governments to impose carbon taxes on power providers, a move that could level the playing field even more for nuclear, he said. A carbon tax would penalize utilities that emit carbon dioxide.

The MIT report agreed that carbon taxes could make nuclear a more viable option in the future.

glavine@sltrib.com