“In the coming decades, we will have to convert to solar power and safe nuclear power, both of which offer essentially unbounded energy supplies.”

—Jeffrey Sachs
Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Scientific American column
September 2008

“The recycling of nuclear fuel would make nuclear power even more valuable by reducing the amount of nuclear wastes generated. Unfortunately, concerns about nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation have slowed the development of nuclear power in the United States, resulting in a ‘once through’ fuel cycle (i.e., no recycling) in the United States. Other countries such as France have successfully deployed nuclear power with fuel recycling, while successfully addressing waste and proliferation concerns. France generates approximately 80 percent of its electricity by nuclear power and, as a result, has the cleanest air in Western Europe.”

—H.L. Dodds, Ph.D.
IBM Professor of Engineering and
Head, Nuclear Engineering Department
University of Tennessee–Knoxville
“The Time Has Come for Nuclear Power With Recyclying”
The Tennessean (Nashville, Tenn.)
June 30, 2008

“There is an existing set of carbon-efficient technologies that are only partly diffused throughout the global economy. … Harnessing the potential of existing low-carbon technologies is crucial: Only by making the decision early to invest will countries be able to benefit from the next generation of nuclear energy.”

—Nicholas Stern
Economist and I.G. Patel chair, London School of Economics and Political Science
“Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change”
April 30, 2008

“Conservation and energy efficiency are very important to the state, but they are not a sufficient solution. There will be substantial growth in nuclear power use in the world in the coming decades, a non-polluting form of power spurring economic development. The only question is whether Wisconsin will take advantage of that resource.”

—Michael Corradini
Engineering physics chair
and nuclear engineering professor
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Oct. 29, 2007

“The fact that no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in years is a threat to all of us. Nuclear power is needed to help meet the increasing demand for electricity, because it’s the only energy source that can provide large amounts of power without emitting carbon dioxide or other global warming gases.”

—Nolan Hertel
Professor of nuclear engineering, Georgia Tech
Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed
July 27, 2007

“Nuclear power has to be part of the solution. Can we really understand the notion of risk? Nuclear plants vs. carbon emission– which will kill and has killed more people?”

—John Hennessy
Stanford University president
As quoted in Investor’s Business Daily
July 17, 2007


“A plan that would require half of new electricity in Florida to be generated with environmentally benign power by 2017 deserves approval by the legislature—but not if it excludes nuclear power.”

—Dr. Gregory Choppin
Professor of chemistry
Florida State University
May 2, 2007


“I think nuclear is at some level unavoidable. When we think about what the energy mix will be for stationary power say 30 years from now or 40 years from now, it's very hard to see how you're going to avoid the use of nuclear power.”

—Dr. Robert Rosner
Director, Argonne National Laboratory
E&ETV, “OnPoint”
April 25, 2007


“Low-emission electricity generation will be achieved in part through niche sources such as wind and biofuels. Larger-scale solutions will come from nuclear and solar power.”

—Jeffrey D. Sachs
Director, Earth Institute, Columbia University
“The Road to Clean Energy Starts Here”
Scientific American
April 15, 2007


“The irony is that the U.S. could have reduced its dependence on oil decades ago had it been allowed to freely and safely develop the nuclear power alternative unconstrained by requirements for new laws, regulations, studies and restrictions.”

—Noel Gibeson
President and chief executive officer, Mount Vernon Institute
April 13, 2007


“The bottom line is, we are going to grow the nuclear program. The industry is talking about needing thousands of nuclear undergraduates every year. We need to be producing them.”

—Dr. Timothy Wei
Professor and department head, mechanical, aerospace and nuclear engineering
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
The Business Review (Albany, N.Y.)
April 13, 2007


“For energy security and carbon emission concerns, nuclear power is very much back on the national and international agenda. In the long term, whether these plants are 4 cents or 8 cents per kilowatt hour, they are still a good deal, if you think carbon is an issue.”

—Dr. Daniel Kammen
Professor of energy and society
University of California, Berkeley
April 2, 2007


“The bottom line is we will need 50 percent more electricity by 2030. We are recommending a return to the nuclear world—it’s the greenest of the green.”

—Floyd Kyamme
Co-chair, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology


“[A charge on carbon dioxide emissions] will raise the price of energy, and of electricity in particular, and the market will respond in three ways: (1) the demand for electricity will fall from the adoption of more efficient generating and end-use technologies, (2) nuclear power and renewables will become more attractive for investment in new electricity-generating capacity; and (3) new technology to reduce CO₂ emissions from coal combustion will become economic.”

—Drs. John Deutch and Ernest Moniz
Co-chairs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, “The Future of Coal”
The Wall Street Journal essay based on study
March 15, 2007


“I believe recycling holds great promise. With new reprocessing methods, it actually reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation, while allowing many other countries to use emission-free nuclear energy for electricity. It significantly reduces the amount and heat levels of high-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in an underground repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. … If we succeed in drawing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program to this area, we will have an appealing new option for dealing with the growing need for clean energy, while bringing in thousands of well-paid jobs and strengthening our economy.”

—Dr. Nolan Hertel
Professor of nuclear and radiological engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed
Feb. 7, 2007


“After engineering costs are paid and construction of the first few nuclear plants has been completed, there is a good prospect that … lower costs would allow nuclear energy to be competitive in the marketplace. Federal financial policies that could help make early nuclear plants more competitive include loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits, and production tax credits. In the long term, the competitiveness of nuclear power could be further enhanced by the rising concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel power generation. … A transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the longer run, increase the demand for nuclear power as a non-polluting way to produce hydrogen. If gas imports increase, nuclear power could substitute for gas and contribute to energy security.”

—University of Chicago
"The Economic Future of Nuclear Power"
August 2004


“A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric [carbon dioxide] to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration. … [A] wedge of nuclear electricity would displace 700 gigawatts of efficient baseload coal capacity in 2054. This would require 700 gigawatts of nuclear power with the same 90 percent capacity factor assumed for the coal plants, or about twice the nuclear capacity currently deployed.”

—Steven Pacala and Robert Socolow, Princeton University
“Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies”
Science Magazine
August 2004


“Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emission. … Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions.”

—Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“The Future of Nuclear Power”
2003