Without a doubt, nuclear energy is one of the more controversial topics in energy and politics. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee running for President, is a big advocate of drastically increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the United States. On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama likes nukes as well, though he doesn’t feel the federal government should provide subsidies for building these new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources of electricity. Sen. Hillary Clinton is the most reserved of the three, preferring renewable fuels because of nuclear power's safety and disposal concerns.

Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.

There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.

The key roadblock to new US nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (145 km) from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.

The proliferation of nuclear energy in the United States while denying developing nations like North Korea and Iran the same power sources seem hypocritical, but some argue that our advancement of nuclear science can help us aid these nations in ensuring they don't use nuclear material for weaponry. It seems the true future of nuclear power economically, politically, and climatologically will be decided in November 2008.

Planet Ark; May 7, 2008

Submitted by B. Shapiro