haps an expansion of clean energy capacity to offset
growing electricity demand until such “clean coal”
technologies can be developed is a possibility.
As is often the case, the direct cost of a course of
action will likely determine whether it is implemented
and to what degree. The costs of constructing addi-
tional nuclear energy capacity will be high. In addition
to supply and demand, the economics of fossil fuel us-
age is dependent on what form and degree of carbon
penalty that might be implemented. The true costs of
climate change are extremely controversial and at best
difficult to forecast. Whether the President’s objective
to expand nuclear energy within the United States is
even capable of maintaining the 20 percent status quo
remains to be seen. Based on a 2010 outlook, the DOE
estimates that only six to fifteen additional nuclear
reactors will come online within the United States by
2035 (EIA 2010a). If a more ambitious expansion, like
that of the Option 1 scenario, is realized, then nuclear
energy may make a direct impact on national security
by positively impacting climate change. However, the
environmental argument to incur the costs to do this
is weakened if GHG reductions made by the United
States are rendered moot by increases in carbon emis-
sions from other countries. As a world leader, perhaps
it is time for the United States to lead.
Sustainability Considerations
Perhaps the most pressing considerations with
regard to the sustainability of nuclear energy as a
strategic resource are the economics involved. While
this can be said for nearly any resource, in the case of
nuclear energy neither raw materials nor technology
advancements are the limiting factors. Capital costs
and their inherent risks of adding more capacity, driv-