[en] After 30 years of supplying electricity throughout the world, the rapid pace of nuclear power has slowed. In the U.S., nuclear power is receiving mixed reviews because of extended construction schedules that have added significantly to project costs. Safety concerns as a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have also raised public acceptance issues. However, the question of the future of nuclear power has to be addressed in the context of a larger issue: utilities, public regulatory commissions, and the general public need to agree on the need for power and work together in planning new generation capacity. Currently, capital investment for any new power plant is unpopular. Because of past problems caused by overestimating or underestimating energy needs, many utilities are planning to meet generation demands through additional peaking units rather than baseload plants. This approach will result in higher energy costs in the future. The sound economic sense of using nuclear plants, built on a reliable schedule and with a firm price, as part of the baseload mix, is demonstrated. Project managers overseas and in the U.S. have constructed plants in six years or less. While the methodology and technology for building the six-year plant already exists, the industry-wide commitment to make it happen consistently in the U.S. is lacking