“Sen. [Jim] Webb wants to explore whether the U.S. should recycle nuclear fuel rods … The United States shouldn’t leap into recycling fuel rods, but the topic deserves a full and comprehensive investigation.”

—“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle—Nuclear Waste?”
The Roanoke (Va.) Times editorial
Aug. 25, 2008

“The bottom line for politicians is that there are ways to produce much more nuclear energy in this county safely and cleanly. Those who really want to move in that direction have no reason to delay.”

—“No We Can’t—Yet”
Investor’s Business Daily editorial
Aug. 25, 2008

“Webb … may have latched onto an answer to the question of what to do with nuclear waste: Recycle it into new fuel.”

—“Webb’s Correct on Nuclear Power’s Role”
Lynchburg (Va.) News & Advance editorial
Aug. 24, 2008

“Nuclear power needs to remain a substantial source of Michigan’s generating capacity.”

—“It’s Time to Get Moving on Energy Policy”
Michigan Business Review editorial
Aug. 21, 2008

“Keeping nuclear and improving the energy-reliance portfolio via renewable, solar, wind, gas and hydro-power are a realistic scenario over time for utility providers who must deal with the reality of providing a consistently affordable supply.”

—“Wind Energy Proposal Should Be Addressed”
Burlington (Vt.) Free Press editorial
Aug. 19, 2008

“Nuclear, a clean power source, is a badly neglected part of the nation’s portfolio.”

—“Powerful Energy Ideas From Presidential Hopefuls”
The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press editorial
Aug. 17, 2008

“It’s not that nothing could go wrong here [at a nuclear power plant], but the safety and security risks seem less ominous and more manageable than opponents of nuclear power make them out to be.”

—“As Energy Demands Grow, Nuclear Deserves a New Look”
USA Today editorial
After touring Dominion’s North Anna nuclear plant
Aug. 14, 2008

“The dynamics have shifted, making nuclear much more attractive than continued reliance on coal.”

—The Roanoke (Va.) Times editorial
July 6, 2008

“Nuclear power generation is safer, more economical and cleaner than any other known energy source.”

—The Paducah (Ky.) Sun editorial
July 5, 2008

“Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity—safely, economically and reliably. Its benefits are real and measurable.”

—Pittsburg Post-Gazette editorial
June 29, 2008

“But rising crude prices have prodded Saudi Arabia to launch a civilian nuclear program.  If oil barons atop some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves consider nuclear power a competitive energy source, U.S. opponents of a safe, clean form of power that now provides 20 percent of domestic electricity supplies look increasingly out of touch.”

—“The Nuclear Option”
Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colo.) editorial
June 10, 2008

“Nuclear power clearly must be part of the state’s and country’s energy future.”

—“Seed Money: Nuclear Power Study Makes Sense”
The Oklahoman (Oklahoma City, Okla.) editorial
June 10, 2008

“With America’s greenhouse gas emissions increasing daily, it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then will we be able to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting our nation’s growing need for electricity. Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing-board stage until the government provides loan guarantees.”
   
—“Federal Loan Guarantees Key to Nuclear Plant Construction”
The Buffalo (N.Y.) News
June 8, 2008

“Maybe environmentalists could get a new slogan to chant at rallies: Save the Earth—go nuclear.”

—“Nuclear Energy Reaches Critical Mass”
Investor’s Business Daily editorial
June 6, 2008

“The U.S. must ensure a more stable energy future by greatly increasing conservation; diversifying its energy supply (more nuclear, clean coal, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass); and expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration, production and infrastructure.”

—“Oh, Believe Me, It Can Get Worse”
Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram editorial
June 3, 2008

“There's no question that nuclear power is the most climate-friendly, industrial-scale energy source. You can worry about radioactive waste or proliferating weapons. You can complain about the high cost of construction and decommissioning. But the reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win. Only wind comes close—and that's when it's blowing.”

—“Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy”
Wired magazine
June 2008


“A long-term answer to our energy problems exists—nuclear energy, already the source of 20 percent of America’s electricity. … Conservation and green energy just aren't enough to resolve our energy problems. What's needed is a political commitment to nuclear.”

—“A Solution to Energy Problems: Go Nuclear”
Chicago Sun-Times
May 27, 2008


"Italy, which last week decided to embrace nuclear power two decades after a public referendum banned nuclear power and deactivated all its reactors, could be just the first of several European countries to reverse its stance on nuclear power, a leading industry group has said. Ian Hore-Lacey, spokesman for the London-based World Nuclear Association, said: ‘Italy has had the most dramatic, the most public turnaround, but the sentiments against nuclear are reversing very quickly all across Europe.’”

—“Italy’s Nuclear Move Triggers Chain Reaction”
Scotsman.com News
May 27, 2008


“Conservation and green energy just aren’t enough to resolve our energy problems. What’s needed is a political commitment to nuclear.”

—Steve Huntley
Chicago Sun-Times columnist
May 27, 2008


“A sane national energy policy that builds a bridge to America’s energy future would . . . fast-track the siting of more nuclear-power plants.”

—“Congress Offers Wrong Energy Rx”
Waterbury (Conn.) Republican American editorial
May 22, 2008

“Solar, wind and other so-called green power alternatives have their place in the nation’s energy mix, but the U.S. can’t make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions without a greater reliance on nuclear energy.”

—“More Than Sound Bite on Nuclear Policy, Please”
Tri-City (Kennewick, Wash.) Herald editorial
May 25, 2008

“The Tennessee Valley Authority board made a commitment Monday [May 19] to cap its carbon emissions by 2020 in an effort to muzzle its contributions to climate change. … Nuclear power was listed Monday among the ‘clean’ energy sources that officials said would be looked to increasingly.”

—“TVA Plans to Cap Emissions, Look to Nuclear Power”
The Tennessean (Nashville, Tenn.)
May 20, 2008


“The Netherlands has added its name to the growing list of European countries that might build nuclear power stations to help meet their greenhouse gas targets. Maria van der Hoeven, Dutch economics minister, said she could not envisage a nuclear-free future if the government was to meet its CO2 targets.”

“Dutch to Weigh Benefits of Nuclear Power”
Stockhouse.com
May 18, 2008


“Mr. McCain is much more enthusiastic, and in our view rightly so, about nuclear energy as a cleaner power source than the Senate sponsors or the two Democratic presidential candidates are.”

—“The Post-Bush Climate”
The New York Times
May 14, 2008


“Victory in the war against climate change is inconceivable without nuclear power. … Clean, efficient, safe nuclear energy could force enormous savings in carbon dioxide emissions.”

—Jonah Goldberg
Los Angeles Times column
May 13, 2008

“The move (a new reactor in Idaho) will bring high-paying jobs … and be an economic boon to the Gem State. It also is one small piece of a nuclear movement that has the potential to substantially increase energy independence by reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.”

—Idaho Press Tribune editorial
May 13, 2008

 

“The federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is holding sessions [Thursday, April 27] and Monday in Augusta to hear any environmental concerns over the proposed construction of two additional nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro. And after these concerns are fairly heard, we hope the board will rightly decide that the new reactors will not harm our area, but help it. If there's any time this country needs more nuclear plants, it's now.”

—“A Boon for Vogtle”
Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle
April 27, 2008


“You would think one of the biggest obstacles to a nuclear plant would be finding a community willing to have one. Turns out, there's at least one Texas community that's happy to be first in line. … Glen Rose is home to Comanche Peak nuclear plant and proud of it.”

—“Nuclear Power Plants Find Growing Acceptance in North Texas”
WFAA.com (Dallas/Ft. Worth)
April 19, 2008


“With oil prices hovering at $100 a barrel and public anxiety mounting over global warming, the case for building new nuclear power plants is becoming even stronger. But some policymakers continue to resist the idea that utilities will need a financial stimulus in the form of loan guarantees. … Loan guarantees are nothing new—the federal government has made them available for many years in support of a wide range of worthwhile endeavors, from the modernization of U.S. shipyards to transit construction to helping millions of farmers and small businesses.”

—“Loan Guarantees Will Be Necessary to Assure That New Nuclear Plants Are Built”
The Day (New London, Conn.)
April 13, 2008


“Nuclear power is cheaper, less wasteful and, yes, safer than just about any other energy source out there, an Oklahoma State University–Tulsa professor [Raman P. Singh] said Friday. ‘The bottom line is that there is no free lunch,’ he said. … ‘You don't have the wind all the time,’ Singh said. ‘You don't have the sun all the time.’”

—“Professor Pushes Nuclear Power”
Tulsa World
March 29, 2008


“Senior German energy executives warned yesterday that Europe's biggest economy faces growing blackouts unless it follows the Franco-British lead in promoting new nuclear power stations.”

—“We Need More Nuclear Plants to Avoid Blackouts, Say German Power Chiefs”
The Guardian
March 24, 2008


“Now, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main trade group representing the industry, is trying a new approach [to the issue of used fuel]. The Institute is quietly talking to communities across the nation to see if they are interested in hosting a temporary waste storage site—perhaps not just a dump, but a nuclear industrial park that could support ancillary businesses and bring in jobs. ‘It is our belief that this only works if there are some communities who express interest and would be willing to consider and discuss and host this kind of facility,’ Marshall Cohen [of NEI] says.”

—“Nuclear Industry to Push Stopgap Waste Sites”
Las Vegas Sun
March 23, 2008


“So for the foreseeable future at least, cutting carbon emissions and creating energy security in the West really means going nuclear. This—despite the various misgivings many have about its security—is an amazingly efficient way of generating energy. Building reactors is expensive, but in terms of the important thing—cost per kilowatt per hour over their lifetimes—they easily beat all other forms of alternative energy.”

—Merryn Somerset Webb
Former stockbroker and editor of Money Week
“Merryn on Money: Nuclear Energy”
The Times Online (U.K.)
March 23, 2008

“Whether we wish to reduce dependence on foreign energy suppliers or to reduce production of greenhouse gases, expanding clean-energy nuclear plants is an obvious decision.”

—The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial
March 21, 2008

“This country needs to turn the corner on electricity and turn the corner on nuclear energy—we need more of it.”

—Charlie Cook
Editor and publisher
Cook Political Report
March 12, 2008


“Forgive the pun, but engineer Jennifer Lee, 25, radiates enthusiasm when she talks about her job at the Limerick nuclear plant near Pottstown. … Now, if only the industry could find 90,000 more like her, in all jobs—from maintenance technician to senior reactor operator, from union electrician to experienced engineer, from pipe fitter to regulator. That's because, at a time when oil prices are rising, the nuclear industry is experiencing a startling, largely unheralded rejuvenation.”

—“A Jobs Boom Is Shaking the Nuclear Industry”
Philadelphia Inquirer
March 9, 2008


“The irony is that almost nobody on either side of the nuclear debate, not even some of Yucca Mountain’s most ardent critics, actually believes that storing waste at the power plants—dispersed, exposed, with watershed to urban areas—is anywhere near as safe as Yucca Mountain in the long term. Yet there it remains, while Yucca Mountain, deep in the Amargosa Desert, sits empty.”

—“Meltdown”
Gentleman’s Quarterly
March 2008


“If you’re concerned about greenhouse gases … nuclear power strikes me as, in the moment, the safest form of energy there is.”

—Tucker Carlson
MSNBC’s “Tucker”
Discussing nuclear energy with guest Ralph Nader
Feb. 25, 2008


“The next president of the United States can strike an early blow for sound energy policy by actively promoting our increased use of nuclear power. Once the bane of environmentalists, nuclear power is now touted as one of the best green alternatives to coal and natural gas for electricity production.”

—“Best Energy Advice to Next President Is to Go Nuclear”
Houston Chronicle
Feb. 23, 2008


“Like it or not, the nukes are coming. Driven by soaring energy demands, the high cost of gas and oil, and worries about global warming, an expansion of peaceful nuclear power increasingly appears to be inevitable. ... Even some environmentalists are swallowing their previous distaste for atomic energy and supporting the expansion of nuclear power in the United States.”

—“Energy Crisis Making Way for ‘Nuclear Renaissance’”
Houston Chronicle
Feb. 16, 2008


“For two decades the U.S. nuclear power industry has been hoping it would get a second chance at meeting the energy needs of the country. That time has finally arrived. Several dimensions of the nuclear new build equation are now converging to drive a resurgence of the nuclear sector.”

—“Nuclear Resurgence”
Electric Perspectives magazine
January/February 2008


“More and more Democrats and ardent environmentalists are now rethinking the nuclear option. They have been joined in Europe by politicians anxious to meet their emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol and wary of their vulnerability to energy blackmail by unpredictable or hostile governments in nations like Russia and Iran.”

—“Power Surge”
The American
February 2008


“We are running out of time. And by not choosing to aggressively build nuclear power plants, we are deciding either to embrace a high-cost, economy-debilitating and less-reliable energy future or we will default to what we know best, coal-fired power plants.”

—Joseph Cannon
Editor, Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
“U.S. Has Great Need for Nuclear”
Jan. 27, 2008


“The dialogue on the pros and cons of holding Hawaii’s first Constitutional Convention in 30 years has not yet mentioned one critical reason or having a convention: the need to repeal the prohibition on nuclear power in Hawaii that the 1978 Con-Con established. We need to do this before spiraling oil prices devastate Hawaii’s economy.”

—“Concon Could Be an Opportunity to Repeal Hawaii’s Nuclear Energy Prohibition”
Hawaii Reporter
Jan. 22, 2008


“Nuclear power is by far the safest means we have at present to produce large quantities of power to generating electricity.”

—Contra Cost (Walnut Creek, Calif.) Times editorial
Jan. 18, 2008

“Opposing the Yucca [Mountain repository] won’t strangle nuclear power, which appears poised for rebirth. But secure, centralized, long-term waste storage is smart, and the science suggests the objections to Yucca can be overcome.”

—USA Today editorial
Jan. 17, 2008


“All three candidates [Clinton, Obama and Ewards] were asked about nuclear power and all three of them basically said, ‘You know I’m again nuclear power.’ And it seems to me that we’ve reached this place where we can be more honest about certain things like nuclear power. If you’re against nuclear power just reflexively in 2008, you’re not a forward-thinking person, it seems to me.”

—Tucker Carlson
After the Democratic debate in Nevada
Jan. 15, 2008


“Talk about a change in outlook. Back in the 1980s nuclear power plants in New York state produced electricity about 60 percent of the time. Nuclear power was stuck in neutral and faced an uncertain future. Today, the same nuclear plants operate more than 90 percent of the time. Refueling and plant maintenance is completed in a few weeks instead of a few months, and the new slogan could be ‘Every day matters.’”

—Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal editorial
“Nuclear Power Is a Clean Source to Meet Energy Needs”
Jan. 13, 2008

“But the reality is that in light of global warming and our mounting energy needs, this country doesn’t have the luxury of abandoning nuclear power.”

—Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot News editorial
Jan. 11, 2008

“A list of 10 big things that need to get done … [includes an effort to] advance the twin causes of energy independence and reduce greenhouse emissions by enacting an escalating carbon tax. [We also need] to encourage all forms of alternative energy, including nuclear power.”

—Morton Knodracke
Whittier (Calif.) Daily News
Jan. 7, 2008


“Exelon Nuclear has chosen an 11,500-acre site in Victoria County in southeast Texas to pursue the possible construction of a nuclear power plant. … ‘If Exelon makes this investment in our community, it will give us a chance to reinvent our economy in a way similar to what happened when DuPont came to town in 1952,’ Victoria Mayor Will Armstrong said. ‘From a financial and psychological standpoint, this is the biggest opportunity we've had in Victoria County since 1952.’”

—Houston Chronicle editorial
“Exelon to Seek License for Nuclear Power Plant in Victoria County”
Dec. 19, 2007


“Texas A&M University is launching an institute that will train students for careers related to nuclear power. The Nuclear Power Institute will help train staff needed to operate new reactors and generating plants. It will also revamp curriculum for junior high, high school and college students who are interested in pursuing careers in the field, officials with Texas A&M Engineering said.”

—Houston Chronicle editorial
“A&M School Will Train Students in Nuclear Power”
Dec. 16, 2007


“Transportation has a significant part to play in reducing U.K. emissions, and hybrid cars could play a significant part in that area. But to really help the planet, we have to go nuclear, fast.”

—Bob Geldof
Musician, activist
The Hybrid Debate blog
Dec. 11, 2007


“We have to begin to discuss further nuclear power use as the energy of the future. Nobody believes that along with economic growth we are able to lower electricity consumption in a dramatic way.”

—Forbes.com
“Debate about Future Nuclear Energy Use Must Begin—Czech Prime Minister”
Nov. 27, 2007


“If Michigan is to meet its power needs during the next quarter century, it has to build either a new coal plant or a nuclear plant. Or perhaps both. And it has to get started building now.”

—Nolan Finley
The Detroit News op-ed
Nov. 18, 2007


“It’s a question of renewable fuel. Nuclear is obviously the way to go.”

—NBC Nightly News
Nov. 9, 2007


“After decades of dormancy in the U.S., nuclear power is making a comeback. Increased energy demand and economics are two reasons. Utilities say nuclear power is cheaper than coal, oil or natural gas. The environment is another [reason]. … Nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases that are believed to contribute to global warming the way fossil fuel plants do.”

—Diane Eastabrook
Nightly Business Report correspondent
“Energy Options: Nuclear Power”
Oct. 29, 2007

“The only viable way to replace our present reliance on fossil fuels in the short-term is nuclear power.”

—Independent Mail (Anderson, S.C.) editorial
Oct. 26, 2007

“Replacing coal-fired plants with alternative sources of energy—even if the only alternative is nuclear—is something that every state and nation must pursue.”

—Boulder (Colo.) Daily Camera editorial
Oct. 24, 2007

“Despite the hurdles, nuclear power has much to offer. Most appealing is that nuclear energy production doesn’t belch greenhouse gases into the air, and nuclear energy is priced competitively.”

—St. Joseph/Benton Harbor (Mich.) Herald Palladium editorial
Oct. 9, 2007

“Finally, the nation seems poised to shake off the unjustified fears that paralyzed its pioneering nuclear power industry for almost 30 years. This is excellent news for consumers and for the environment. … Americans should look forward to a time when nuclear plants provide most of the country’s electricity.”

—Press Register (Mobile, Ala.) editorial
Oct. 3, 2007


“Nuclear power is a proven source of generating large amounts of energy. And it has been proven to be safe and reliable.”

—Foster’s Daily Democrat (Dover, N.H.) editorial
Oct. 2, 2007

“In short, nuclear energy works. ... In the next 25 years, electricity demand in the U.S. will rise 40 percent. We would be wise to harness more nuclear power to help out.”

—Pittsburgh Tribune Review editorial
“Atomic Power: Embrace Its Return”
Oct. 1, 2007

“The long-expected revival of nuclear power has now gotten off the ground. Environmentalists should be cheering, for this is the only form of electricity generation available on a large scale that does not produce gases that warm the earth.”

—Boston Herald editorial
“A Boost for Nuclear Power”
Sept. 30, 2007

“The City of Austin is quietly considering whether it should invest in the proposed $6 billion expansion of the nuclear power plant at the South Texas Project. … The issue isn’t whether to build the two nuclear reactors; it’s whether Austin should participate. Austin should seriously consider it.”

—Austin American-Statesman editorial
“Austin Should Consider New Nuclear Plant”
Sept. 27, 2007

“While global warming is positioned to be a hot issue in the 2008 presidential election, the candidates must face directly the one large-scale means of providing carbon-free electric power: nuclear energy. Candidates in both parties should swallow hard and confess that the United States must take steps that they find difficult.”

—John Dyson, board member of Third Way, and
Matt Bennett, vice president for public affairs of Third Way
Boston Globe
“Just Say ‘Oui’ to Nuclear Power”
Sept. 16, 2007

“What can you do? That’s the question behind the Daily Press ‘Green Challenge”: What can you do to reduce your contribution to greenhouse gas emissions? … You can urge your representatives in Congress to get serious about producing more energy from alternative sources, like wind and nuclear power. … Urge your state legislators to do the same.”

—Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) editorial
Sept. 13, 2007

“The legislature and the governor saw no role for new nuclear power in addressing Connecticut’s energy needs. … How ironic that a state that led the development of nuclear technology now rejects it as a new power source. … It is foolish not to consider the nuclear power option.”

—The Day editorial
In response to nuclear power’s profile in recently passed Connecticut energy legislation
Sept. 4, 2007

“Plans to build the first nuclear power plant in Canada in 20 years couldn’t have come at a more opportune time. As concerns about global warming rise to fever pitch, a full-flung debate on the role of nuclear energy in reducing CO₂ emissions—and fears about safety—is essential.”

—London (Canada) Free Press editorial
Aug. 30, 2007

“Nuclear power is a safer industry, it is a more efficient industry, and it is critical to answering energy demands and protecting the environment. The U.S. can have faith in nuclear power.”

—Chicago Tribune editorial
Aug. 26, 2007

“Science has yielded safer and cleaner methods for the production and disposal of nuclear energy, which, as a renewable source, is much more environmentally sound than non-renewable energies like coal and gasoline. It is ironic that leftist groups which normally consider themselves the embodiment of eco-friendliness are opposing rather than embracing this eco-friendly form of energy.”

—Washington Times editorial
“Eco-Friendly Nuclear”
Aug. 19, 2007

“With maximum safety requirements in place for people and the environment, and with a ban in place on the hostile use of nuclear technology, why should the peaceful use of nuclear technology be barred?”

—Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino
President, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
Vatican Radio
Aug. 1, 2007

“New nuclear plants could help significantly increase the power supply and reduce carbon emissions. … The U.S. may generate an increasing amount of its electricity from nuclear power plants in the future.”

—Fidelity Investor’s Quarterly
“Power Surge”
August 2007

“Building on the opportunities embedded in the climate change issue, and appreciating the sobering responsibility associated with nuclear power generation, the industry is poised to move the renaissance from abstraction to reality.”

—Alice Clamp
Electric Power Research Institute Journal
Summer 2007


“The great green campaign against global warming may need nuclear power in its arsenal. Atoms for peace could become atoms for Mother Earth. With the push for ‘clean’ energy to reduce greenhouse gases, nuclear energy is undergoing a renaissance both on Wall Street (and in utility executive offices) and public opinion.”

—“Power Surge”
Port Folio Weekly (Hampton Roads region, Va.)
July 31, 2007

“Because nuclear power runs on uranium, it doesn’t emit the greenhouse gases associated with carbon-emitting coal.”

—Elliot Blair Smith
Bloomberg news
July 9, 2007

“Nuclear energy proponents believe new U.S. plants can be on line by 2015. For the sake of the environment, energy independence and adequate supplies of electrical power, let's hope the forecasts are accurate.”

—Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.) editorial
July 6, 2007


Peter Fenn: Some of us, you know, even good old liberals, believe that nuclear power should be a real part of this mix. I do.
Glenn Beck: Peter, I have got to tell you, that's why I like you—because … you're somebody who says, ‘I'm an environmentalist, but, hello, nuclear power makes sense.’”

—Dialogue between Glenn Beck, CNN host, and
Former Al Gore adviser Peter Fenn
CNN live event
July 5, 2007

“The answer, to some, is simple: ‘clean,’ carbon- free, low- cost nuclear energy, backed by several decades of safe plant operations.”

—Site Selection magazine
July 2007 cover story

“Why aren’t we in the U.S. building more nuclear plants? Nuclear energy is environmentally superior. Nuclear energy doesn’t emit CO² or particulates, no ground level ozone, and no acid rain.”

—Rolf Westgard
St. Cloud (Minn.) Times
“Your Turn: Nuclear Power Is What U.S. Needs”
June 27, 2007

“With the growing acknowledgement about the relationship of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to global warming, the advantages of nuclear power are rightly getting new attention.”

—Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier editorial
“New Future for Nuclear Energy”
June 7, 2007

“What’s happening now is nothing short of a rebirth. … Across the country plans are on the table for 20 new [nuclear] plants. And when we talk with people in the shadow of San Onofre [Nuclear Generating Station]’s domes, many admit their perceptions have shifted. … So what’s changed? Urgent new worries about global warming and a push to halt the production of greenhouse gases– that’s drawing unusual ranks into the chorus for nuclear power.”

—CNN News
“Nuclear Comeback”
June 3, 2007

“There's an empty pit about a hundred miles southwest of Washington where two nuclear power plants were planned but never built. The pit became a symbol of the success of the antinuclear movement. … But today, the hill above that pit at Dominion Virginia Power's North Anna station offers a great view of Virginia's nuclear future.”

—Washington Post editorial
“On the Precipice of Virginia’s Nuclear Future”
June 3, 2007

“We shirked our duty by ignoring Jimmy Carter’s call for energy independence. And in the process, we abandoned nuclear power. … We could be energy independent and economically secure while poisoning the planet a whole lot less in the process. That is the nation we should be handing off to our kids. Instead, all we can do is undertake a journey we should have completed long ago.”

—Orlando Sentinel editorial
“Decades Lost—We Must Get Energy-Smart”
May 31, 2007


“One day, our dependence on fossil fuels will be behind us, and our fears of nuclear power a thing of the past. That will truly be a beautiful day.”

—The Natchez (Miss.) Democrat editorial
May 22, 2007


“Questions about long-term storage for nuclear waste remain, but ignoring one of the world’s chief sources of electrical production is ludicrous.”

—Tri-City (Wash.) Herald editorial
May 16, 2007


"Even some environmental groups have come to realize that a new generation of safer nuclear plants is the best option for addressing the nation's mounting energy needs. ... Nuclear units emit no greenhouse gases from plant operations, which makes nuclear a compellingly green alternative to coal, oil and natural gas."

—USA Today editorial
May 16, 2007

“President Bush outlined a plan Monday to cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. His goal is to cut use of imported oil 20 percent in 10 years. But without a comprehensive approach, we will never get there. … Atomic energy makes sense.”

—Investor’s Business Daily editorial
“Energy Policy: Keep It Comprehensive,”
May 14, 2007

“A growing Virginia is demanding more electricity, and nuclear plants are a reasonable way to provide the power.”

—Newport (Va.) News editorial
May 9, 2007


“Look, America should embrace nuclear power, even if it’s to get off the foreign oil bandwagon.”

—Glenn Beck
Host, CNN Headline News
May 2, 2007


“The frame of reference for these young job seekers also includes modern-day environmentalism. They worry about nuclear waste but believe it can be disposed of safely. Many insist it's a political problem, not a technical one. These students hope by the time they retire, nuclear power will provide the majority of the electricity in the United States.”

—National Public Radio, “Marketplace”
Report on American Nuclear Society's annual student conference
April 26, 2007


“Each of the top contenders for the Republican nomination and all but one of the major Democratic hopefuls support nuclear power to some extent. Most cite the prospect that atomic energy could help reduce climate change by supplanting power produced by fossil fuel sources such as coal and natural gas.”

—The New York Sun editorial
April 20, 2007


“The Tennessee Valley Authority’s decision to restart the reactor it shut down 22 years ago puts Alabama at the forefront of a nuclear-power resurgence in the United States.”

—The Birmingham News editorial
April 16, 2007


“Escalating concerns about the effect of fossil fuels on the climate and uncertainty about oil sources ... are prompting an overdue reassessment of nuclear power by politicians and environmentalists alike.”

—Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette editorial
April 15, 2007


“To reach the necessary scale of emissions-free energy will require big clean-coal or nuclear power stations, wind farms and solar farms, all connected to a national transmission grid, not to mention clean fuels for our cars and trucks.”

—Thomas Friedman
The New York Times Magazine
April 15, 2007


“The only reasonable scenario for avoiding global warming is to substitute nuclear power for coal as our prime source of baseload electricity, supplementing it with wind and solar electricity for our sinning reserve and peaking-power needs.”

—William Tucker
The Wall Street Journal op-ed
March 28, 2007


“Other environmentalists say the need to address global warming means taking a harder look at nuclear. Besides (the Pew Center on Global Climate Change), at least three leading environmental organizations … say they are willing to consider nuclear power as part of the long-term solution to global warming.”

—USA Today
“Some Rethinking Nuke Opposition”
March 23, 2007


“Nuclear power has two paradoxes. The first is that an energy source that has proved itself over decades to be safe, clean and economic should be perceived as dangerous, dirty and expensive. The second is that a technology that is so well understood and on which information is so easy to obtain should be the subject of such wild ignorance.”

—Fin24.com
“Seven Reasons to Back Nuclear Power”
March 2, 2007

“The Kansas House has proposed legislation that would provide property tax relief if a new nuclear plant is built near Wolf Creek. This is a good first step and we [are] hopeful it will be passed. … Wolf Creek has been a tremendous benefit to Coffey County, Lyon County and the state. We want to make sure we don’t miss out on this opportunity to bring jobs and economic vitality to our area.”

—Christopher White Walker
Editor and publisher, The Emporia (Kan.) Gazette
“Nuclear Energy: The More the Better”
Feb. 14, 2007


“Given the lack of mineable coal or natural gas in Michigan, nuclear power is the best option to help the state move toward energy independence.”

—The Detroit News editorial
Feb. 13, 2007


“[W]e should support Duke Energy’s plan to build more nuclear plants. They are clean, reliable and economical. Duke’s two existing nuclear plants have been humming along for many years, completely trouble-free. … So we need to use coal now, and nuclear as soon as possible. This is the best strategy for Duke Energy and for the Carolinas. The public and our state governments should support it.”

—Frank Koconis
Community Columnist
The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer
Jan. 23, 2007


“[N]ew hires in the power sector tend to regard atomic energy as a plausible solution to America’s energy woes—as did the engineers who built the first generation of nukes. The fact that plants emit no greenhouse gases is a huge plus.”

—Adam Aston
BusinessWeek
“Who Will Run the Plants?”
Jan. 22, 2007

“As [a new plant in Levy County, Fla.,] is pursued, citizens shouldn't hesitate to scrutinize Florida Progress’ plans, ask tough questions and make safety demands that they feel are needed. But there’s a big difference between scrutinizing what the utility is doing to safeguard the public and simply opposing anything nuclear—a clean and affordable power source that should be part of the nation’s strategy for energy independence.”

—Tampa Tribune editorial
“Nuclear Power No Longer Terrifies”
Jan. 7, 2007


“Here is how much public attitudes have changed on nuclear power generation: When Progress Energy Florida picked a proposed nuclear reactor site in Levy County the other day, the major controversy that arose was whether neighboring Citrus County would share enough of the economic benefit. ... While renewable sources of energy such as solar power are still in the developmental stage, nuclear is the new green.”

—St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times editorial
"Go Green With Nuclear"
Dec. 18, 2006


“Florida is projected to add the population of New York state in the next 50 or so years. … This brings me to an announcement by Progress Energy that it might build a nuclear power plant out in the hinterlands of Levy County. There should be no ‘might’ about it. This should be built as quickly as possible, then followed by five more.”

—Mike Thomas
Columnist, Orlando Sentinel
“Nuclear Plants Can Generate Florida’s Future”
Dec. 14, 2006


“We can worry about imaginary threats of nuclear energy or the real dangers of fossil fuel pollution. An energy plan that does not involve continued and even increased use of nuclear power is no plan at all. And even if we closed all nuclear plants tomorrow, the waste problem would remain. We need nuclear power. We need Yucca Mountain. Let’s split atoms, not hairs.”

—Investor’s Business Daily editorial
Dec. 1, 2006


“Floridians, and Americans in general, ought to be prepared to accept, if not embrace, nuclear power as a vital link in our energy supply chain. … The reality is that nuclear power is safe, reliable and cheap. So much so that … elected officials in Citrus County are openly petitioning Progress Energy to locate the new reactor next to its current one in Crystal River.”

—Star-Banner (Ocala, Fla.) editorial
Nov. 23, 2006


“Building nuclear power plants has been unthinkable in this country for a quarter-century. It’s getting thinkable again.”

—Governing Magazine
“The Nuclear Option”
November 2006

“We almost certainly need more and better nuclear plants, since nuclear energy is low-carbon energy. No new nuclear plant has been built for decades, mainly for cost reasons. But many people, including some environmentalists who once recoiled from the nuclear option, are now persuaded that global warming cannot be tackled without a new generation of cheaper, safer and more reliable nuclear plants.”

—Robert Semple Jr.
The New York Times
“Beyond Fossil Fuels”
Oct. 11, 2006


“The point about nuclear energy that environmentalists should most embrace just keeps getting stronger. Those concerned about global warming should find their interest in combating rising temperatures almost impossible to reconcile with their opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear power doesn’t add one iota of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. And it’s the only energy source that can realistically reduce the world’s dependence on burning fossil fuels.”

—Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette editorial
“Persuading the Environmentalists”
Oct. 8, 2006


“The nation, of course, needs to do more to encourage energy conservation and efficiency and to increase the development of renewable energy sources, such as solar. But conservation alone won’t meet the nation’s growing energy needs. Nuclear power—clean, economical and now safer than ever—should play a major role in our energy strategy.”

—Tampa (Fla.) Tribune editorial
Sept. 8, 2006


“With energy prices soaring, and worries that global warming could trigger catastrophic climate changes, nuclear power—for decades perceived as an environmental scourge—is emerging as the cleanest and most cost-efficient source of energy available, a fact conceded even by environmentalists.”

—The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle editorial
Aug. 21, 2006


“Nuclear energy is clean and it is safe. It is time government officials give the green light to make the development, construction and operation of nuclear power plants easier and less expensive.”

—Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World editorial
Aug. 1, 2006


“No effective U.S. program to reduce the environmental harm done by conventional energy sources can be created without assigning a major role to nukes.”

—The Times (Trenton, N.J.) editorial
May 28, 2006


“There is good reason to give nuclear power a fresh look. It can diversify our sources of energy with a fuel—uranium—that is both abundant and inexpensive. More important, nuclear energy can replace fossil-fuel power plants for generating electricity, reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute heavily to global warming. That could be important in large developing economies like China’s and India’s, which would otherwise rely heavily on burning large quantities of dirty coal and oil. … Nuclear power has a good safety record in this country, and its costs, despite the high initial expense of building the plants, are looking more reasonable now that fossil fuel prices are soaring. How much impact it could really have in slowing carbon emissions has yet to be spelled out, but there is no doubt that nuclear power could serve as a useful bridge to even greener sources of energy.”

—The New York Times
“The Greening of Nuclear Power”
May 13, 2006


“We need [our leaders] to know that there is no more important issue than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. … This isn’t just about Cape Wind. This is about more Cape Winds, everywhere we can put them. This is about nuclear power because the risks from long-term storage of nuclear fuel rods pales in comparison with the harm being caused right now.”

—John K. Bullard
The Boston Globe
“Heading for a ‘Roasted World’”
March 6, 2006


“[G]lobal warming may ultimately be the greatest test we face as stewards of our planet. … We know what to do: energy conservation, gas taxes and carbon taxes, more renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, and new (and safe) nuclear power plants.”

—Nicholas D. Kristoff
The New York Times
“Warm, Warmer, Warmest”
March 5, 2006


“The facts are straightforward: Nuclear power, which produces 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, creates virtually none of the pollution that causes climate change and delivers electricity cheaper than other forms of generation do. The primary alternatives are coal-fired plants, which account for half the nation’s electricity but emit pollutants, or plants powered by natural gas, which has doubled in price since 1999. New technologies, while promising, are not yet capable of meeting the expected need. … Twenty-six years after Three Mile Island, it’s time for the nation to update its thinking about nuclear energy. If more reliable and cleaner energy is the goal, nuclear power has to be part of the solution.”

—USA Today
“Nuclear Power: Better Design, Standards Make Nuclear Logical Source of Energy”
July 18, 2005


“[N]ow, very quietly, nuclear power is on its way back in the U.S. and around the world. And—it must be said—that’s a good thing. … In a world threatened by warming, an emission-free power source is desperately important. Solar and wind power cannot even begin to fill the need. And after 50 years of experience with nuclear power, the risks are no longer great enough to justify opposing it. … [N]uclear power is about to start increasing rather than decreasing, and the evidence—today’s evidence, not that of 25 years ago—is persuasive that the world will be better off.”

—Fortune
“Nuclear Power Is Back—Not A Moment Too Soon”
May 30, 2005


“The central hypocrisy of environmentalists has long been that their anti-nuclear hysteria has driven the U.S. to increase the use of fossil fuels that pollute the air and contribute to global warming. … If we had simply built all the nuclear power plants that were in the pipeline at the time of the over-hyped Three Mile Island incident, we’d have reduced our current coal consumption by more than enough to satisfy the requirements of Kyoto. After decades of heavy subsidies and quasi-religious support, renewable energy sources other than hydroelectric account for about a measly 1 percent of our electricity generation.”

—Investor’s Business Daily
“Greenie Meltdown”
May 20, 2005


“Advances in reactor designs … make another Three Mile Island highly unlikely. The safety record, the improvements in efficiency—and the nation’s insatiable demand for energy—argue for a push for more nuclear power.”

—Chicago Tribune
“Nuclear Spring”
May 15, 2005


“On the production side, we are going to have to start building nuclear power plants, particularly since new nuclear technologies are safer and cleaner than ever.”

—Mortimer B. Zuckerman
“Our Energy Conundrum”
U.S. News & World Report
April 25, 2005


“It’s increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green. … Nuclear power, in contrast with other [energy] sources, produces no greenhouse gases. … [F]or now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn’t contribute to global warming and that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid.”

—Nicholas D. Kristoff
“Nukes Are Green”
The New York Times
April 9, 2005