America faces a looming energy crisis. Advancements in technology, a growing population and a thriving economy are creating the demand for ever-increasing levels of energy. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy projects the nation will need to produce 45 percent more electricity by 2030 -- the equivalent of 300 large electric power plants. As we struggle to meet this need, environmental concerns and geopolitical realities argue strongly against increasing our already heavy reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Christine Todd Whitman is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (www.cleansafeenergy.org). She is a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and former governor of New Jersey.

Where do we turn for solutions? Conservation must be one component of a long-term strategy, but it alone will not bridge the energy gap. We need to develop new supplies of energy that are dependable, readily available and as environmentally sound as possible. As a mother and a new grandmother, I am especially concerned about this last aspect of our long-term energy solution. I am encouraged by the growing use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power. America must invest heavily in developing these vital resources.

Unfortunately, they have their limitations. Wind and solar power, by their intermittent nature, can meet only limited demand. Geothermal power is not well-suited for all applications and can be capital-intensive. To complement these sources and help deliver the electricity we will need while maintaining our environmental quality, we should consider an increased role for nuclear power as part of a diverse energy solution.

Not only is nuclear power the cheapest to produce among all major electricity sources, it is also a safe and secure resource thanks to a combination of strict government regulation, improved security features and rigorous and continuous training within the industry. Just as important, nuclear energy has one of the smallest environmental "footprints" in its impact on air, land, water and wildlife.

Nuclear power plants do not produce air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, which cause ground-level ozone, smog and acid rain. This is particularly meaningful in the summer, when air quality alerts in cities like Pittsburgh have become too commonplace. (Southwestern Pennsylvania has had eight ozone-alert days since May.)

Nuclear energy is by far the nation's largest electricity source that does not emit greenhouse gases. In 2004, the use of nuclear power to generate electricity avoided the emission of nearly as much carbon dioxide as was released from all U.S. passenger cars. To put it another way, if the United States did not produce 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, 134 million of the 136 million cars would have to be taken off the road to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from increasing.

To be clear, nuclear power presents its own issues that must be addressed. To provide an optimal future for this abundant electricity source, the nuclear industry and the U.S. government must work together to establish a central repository for the permanent storage of used nuclear fuel.

The small amount of used fuel that is created, however, is now being safely and carefully stored on-site at each plant in specially designed containers or in steel-lined concrete vaults filled with water. And because nuclear energy has such a small impact on its surroundings, many energy companies have created natural areas, such as wildlife sanctuaries, around their plants, working with the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited and the Wildlife Habitat Council.

Americans depend on electricity more than any time in our history -- from powering our homes and offices to running our computers and other communication devices to operating our transit systems. This demand will only continue to grow.

We can and should do all we can to conserve energy, develop alternate sources and make our fossil fuel-powered plants run cleaner and more efficiently. But it would be foolhardy, both economically and environmentally, not to increase our country's nuclear energy capacity as an affordable, reliable, readily available and clean component of our energy mix in the years ahead.