Looks like America is finally catching on.

There’s nothing like a few days without electricity to make you rethink your position on the use of nuclear power.

Rolling blackouts had already afflicted residents of Northern California earlier this year. Now, the state has spent hours in darkness over a region spanning hundreds of miles from San Diego to San Francisco.

It appears some of the movers and shakers in the electronics industry, which forms the backbone of the Silicon Valley economy, have decided the situation is untenable. The Chief Executive of Intel Corporation has had enough. He candidly told a reporter from the Washington Post, "Nuclear power is the answer. But it’s not politically correct."

That, too, may be changing.

Long time friends of the earth like former Vice-President Al Gore and Florida Senator Bob Graham may be ready to climb aboard the nuclear bandwagon. Speaking to a gathering at the Chernobyl Museum in the Ukraine, back in 1998, Gore said, "Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world’s energy supply."

Senator Graham sees a greater risk to the environment from global warming and the rising ocean levels that could put significant portions of his state under water. Believing that gas emissions from fossil fuel power stations are responsible for abetting the so-called "greenhouse effect," Graham is intrigued by the promise of nuclear generating stations which produce no such pollution.

Graham was surprised to learn that we could meet the terms of an environmental treaty with no additional sacrifices, if we would only agree to produce 80 percent of America’s power needs using nuclear reactors. France already has achieved that 80 percent nuclear goal.

And, listen up, environmentalists. If you’re concerned about off-shore oil drilling causing massive oil spills like the one expected from the destroyed drilling platform off the coast of Brazil, reducing our oil demand should lessen the need for such facilities.

The senator called nuclear energy one of our cleanest energy sources. He said it is also one of the safest, most reliable and least expensive.

He is correct.

And his unlikely evangelism for the cause of nuclear power is causing more Congressional converts to reconsider their monolithic opposition, among them Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln, Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu and a host of Republicans.

There are reports that House Republicans are planning to include extra incentives in this year’s Energy legislation for utilities that choose the nuclear option

The beauty of rehabilitating the image of nuclear power is the speed with which our energy shortage could be turned around. We may not even require a crash building project. Many nuclear power stations are now in mothballs and with the proper commitment to installing the latest set of safeguards, these stations could be back on line, quickly.

Once operating, the nuclear plants would require less maintenance, fewer hours of downtime and cost consumers far less than today’s power grid.

One reason lawmakers may no longer be running for cover from a perceived voter backlash is the changing public perception on the nuclear issue.

A poll conducted, Monday, by the Internet news page, World Net Daily, indicated that 82.7 percent of respondents believed the U.S. needs to build more nuclear power plants.

Only 10 percent expressed outright opposition or strong reservations.

Granted, World Net Daily has an audience comprised mostly of conservative readers. But those die-hard liberals who prefer the status of outmoded and uninformed nuclear opponents may soon find themselves, quite literally, in the dark on this issue.

4.9¢ long distance from WebToday: Online sign-up takes 30 seconds