clear power, in contrast with other sources, produces
no greenhouse gases (Kristhof 2005).As mentioned, nuclear energy satisfies 20 percent
of the U.S. electrical energy demand. In 2009, approxi-
mately 69 percent of that demand is met by fossil fuel
fired power plants, with coal being the greatest single
fuel source, used to meet approximately 45 percent of
the electrical energy demand (EIA 2009). While the
deleterious effects of acid rain have been largely cur-
tailed in the United States in the last 30 years (EPA
2009), the polluting byproduct of fossil fuel combus-
tion now receiving great attention is the GHG carbon
dioxide (CO 2 ). Burning fossil fuels releases carbon into
the atmosphere that had been naturally sequestered
underground. Coal combustion is the second largest
source of CO 2 emitted in the United States and the
single largest source on the planet (EIA 2010e).
It is with respect to combating climate change that
nuclear energy could perhaps make the greatest direct
impact. As previously stated, the President seeks to ex-
pand the use of nuclear energy. Since this is not quan-
tified, the following two cases are examined. Option 1
is herein defined as substantially expanding nuclear
energy capacity within the next 25 years to meet 50
percent of the U.S. electrical energy demand. Based on
the EIA projected 30 percent increase in U.S. electrical
energy demand, this would necessitate a fleet of 340
reactors by 2035.* Even without an expected increase
in capacity from renewable sources, this option would
reduce the absolute electrical energy needed from fos-
*The U.S. 2008 electrical energy requirement was 3873 billion
kilowatt-hours. In the year 2035 U.S. electrical energy demand is
estimated at 5021 billion kilowatt-hours. Knowing that 104 reactors
provided 20% of the 2008 demand allows for a straightforward
calculation of total reactors needed by 2035 for Option 1 and
Option 2.