This book explores the topic of nuclear power in the United States. Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the U.S., several utilities are now expressing interest in building a total of up to 30 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. This book compares the cost of two-fuel cycle alternatives for the current generation of thermal reactors -- one alternative being direct disposal, and the other reprocessing. This book also includes analyses of the potential effect of the tax credit for nuclear power provided by the Energy Policy of 2005 and possible competitive effects of various proposals to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Under baseline assumptions, the cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants is likely to be higher than power generated by new coal- and natural gas-fired plants. This book consists of public documents which have been located, gathered, combined, reformatted, and enhanced with a subject index, selectively edited and bound to provide easy access.

In an era defined by anxiety over global warming and the search for alternative fuel sources, nuclear power is rarely part of the conversation. It promises limitless power and a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Yet, it is by no means perfectly safe or “clean,” as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima remind us. Even so, thirty countries are operating 444 reactors, accounting for almost 11 percent of the world’s electricity production. The debate over nuclear energy is a fierce and emotional one, and arguments, agendas, assumptions, and factual information must be scrutinized meticulously and carefully. This volume allows readers to do just that as they begin to form their own opinions on the viability of nuclear power.

In the new era, the United States need not rely on nuclear weapons to prevent a global challenger from upsetting the status quo, to compensate for weakness in conventional defense, or to impress others with its power. Although the threat of nuclear response to conventional attack is no longer crucial to U.S. strategy, rogue states might adopt this tactic to deter U.S. power projection. However, the United States needs nuclear weapons to deter nuclear and biological attack, which could be just as deadly and might not be deterred by threat of U.S. conventional retaliation. The United States could reduce the importance and attractiveness of nuclear weapons, delegitimize their use in response to conventional threats, sharpen nuclear deterrence against biological weapons by stating nuclear weapons would be used only in retaliation for attacks with weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--in essence, a "no-first-use-of-WMD" policy.

This study seeks to address the emerging incongruence between the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the U.S. policy for managing this process. American society and its political leadership must accept the need to adapt its policy to the rapidly-changing circumstances in nuclear proliferation. For at least two decades, the process of nuclear proliferation continued unabated, with the emergence of new nuclear powers, including India, Israel, and Pakistan. Since 1992, deep concerns about the emergence of North Korea as a nuclear power have provoked a protracted diplomatic crisis between the South Korean-United States alliance and North Korea. Further, the dissolution of the Soviet Union created three additional 'instant' nuclear powers-Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Kazakhstan and Belarus agreed to eliminate their nuclear weapons and accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-weapon states. Ukraine, however, has thus far steadfastly refused to relinquish its nuclear forces. The United States increasingly finds itself in the midst of diplomatic crises over the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of increasing numbers of states, both friendly and unfriendly. Steadfast opposition to nuclear proliferation is a remnant of the Cold War when the prospect of a multi-nuclear world represented a direct threat to peace and stability. For decades, the United States marshaled the resources of the international community to decelerate the process of nuclear proliferation. There were efforts by the nuclear-armed powers of the United Nations Security Council to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and thus the number of nuclear-armed states.