If the nuclear program had moved in a more cautious manner and energy consumption had still continued on its project path through the 1970s and 1980s, might nuclear power have looked more favorable? The safety issues likely would have been recognized before a larger roll out of the technology, and coal and petroleum burning power plants would be providing all of the energy. The issue for 1980s would be that the nation was starting to reach the limits of how much coal could be shipped on the national railway network, and the issue with petroleum would be the shortages that would occur as the result of any external system shock such as an embargo, war, labor dispute, or industrial incident.
Would butterflying the roll out of nuclear power and/or the onset of the energy crises by a decade lead to it becoming a prominent policy alternative? During the 1970s no one seemed to think that the economy could become as energy efficient as it did in a short period of time starting in the 1980s, so perceptions of an energy and perhaps even environmental crisis would be far more acute.