One of the major tenets of President Bush's energy plan, aside from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, is to limit America's dependence on foreign sources of oil by building new nuclear power plants. Can't figure out the logic behind such a move? Perhaps there's a reason why, The New York Times' Matthew L. Wald reports.

President Bush has proposed reducing oil imports by increasing the use of nuclear power, which he said in a recent speech was "one of the most promising sources of energy."

There is a problem, though: reactors make electricity, not oil. And oil does not make much electricity.

Nuclear reactors produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States and about 8 percent of the total energy consumed. Oil accounts for 41 percent of energy consumption.

Could a few dozen more reactors, in addition to the 103 running now, cut into oil's share of the energy market?

"Indirectly, but very indirectly," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a nonprofit group that studies the economics of oil. People who think nuclear power is a way to reduce oil imports are "confusing several issues," he said.

Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, added, "No one knowledgeable about energy policy would link nuclear power and gasoline prices."

As gas prices continue to climb with no peak in sight, Americans' approval of President Bush will continue to fall. The fact is that nuclear power cannot supplant America's rapacious appetite for Middle East oil. Even industry officials tacitly admit this. And as global demand for petroleum increases with the rapid economic growth in India and China, Americans could find themselves paying as much as Europeans for a gallon of gas (i.e. twice as much as they pay now). So it's time for President Bush to get serious about energy reform. Real energy reform, not some giveaway to the nuclear power industry.