Well, joining us for this week's MIX, to debate nuclear energy -- Alex Flint, a senior vice president of government affairs at the nuclear industry lobby group Nuclear Energy Institute, that's here in Washington, D.C. And Christopher Paine is the director of the nuclear program at environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. It's good to have both of you here. Thank you very much.

Let's get right to it. The controversy has erupted once again, and let's, Christopher, start with safety. Is nuclear energy safe or not in your view?

[PAINE] There are continuing safety issues -- as reactors age, components have to be replaced. There have to be inspections of aged materials in the reactor. So, safety is something that, it's never an absolute, "Is it safe, or is it not safe?" We just have to work on safety constantly. And I think that's understood now, whereas it was not understood in the earlier era.

[ASSURAS] And a major part of the safety, Alex, has to do, of course, with the dangerous radioactive waste material that comes out in the end, the spent fuel. And I've heard that described as "ready-made dirty bombs." What do we think of that?

[FLINT] Used fuel is highly radioactive and it is dangerous if people get close to it, and so it has to be very carefully managed. It has to be stored in pools, stored in casks. It has to be managed for thousands of years very safely. We believe that can be done and have demonstrated around the world that that's possible.

[ASSURAS] But in this country, it's not, for example, going to be buried or recycled. Is that not something that you're worried about?

[PAINE] Well, I think we're concerned about it. And I think safe storage, on the surface, in what are called dry, heavy casks can be accomplished for several decades. But in order for nuclear energy to really find its place and gain the public's assurance, there has to be a disposal path for the spent fuel.

[ASSURAS] Let me ask you about something else, though, and, Christopher, I'll stay with you, because we're talking about nuclear energy as clean energy. Are you comfortable with that?

[PAINE] No. I'm comfortable with the description that nuclear energy is low-carbon energy. It's definitely not clean energy. Any energy process that produces large amounts of radioactive waste and involves radioactive exposures to personnel that work in the industry, that releases 2/3 of the energy produced as waste heat into our rivers and estuaries.

[FLINT] First of all, nuclear energy is clean energy. And the issue is, how do we manage the consequences of production of any sort of energy? And it is much easier to manage the consequences of the production of electricity from nuclear energy. We can safely manage and store used nuclear fuel. We manage the off-site releases from the power plants. We address the issues with the cooling water requirements. And so, as compared to other forms of energy, yes, nuclear energy is clean energy.

[ASSURAS] One of the most fascinating things in this whole nuclear energy discussion, I think, is that we're looking, in Washington, D.C., at the Democrats and the Republicans on common ground on nuclear energy. What's going on? Are you comfortable with that, in the green community?

[PAINE] There's room for agreement. I can't tell you today the specifics of that agreement.

[ASSURAS] Room for agreement on nuclear energy?

[PAINE] Well, look, nuclear energy is 20% of our generation today. It exists. And every environmentalist knows that. And, you know, the question is the pace and the terms under which nuclear energy moves forward, relative to all the other clean energy options.

[ASSURAS] And potentially grows, in fact. Are you surprised at this common ground?

[FLINT] No, I'm not surprised, and it's been nice to see it validated. The day after the election, the President said and Speaker Boehner said that nuclear energy was the common ground in the energy and climate discussion. And I think if you can see common ground reached on that, a lot of the other issues will get worked out as well, and there's been a lot of progress made on the political constituency in support for nuclear energy.

[PAINE] I wouldn't start with nuclear because nuclear is not the most effective and quickest option. I think the common ground around which you build consensus is a major, massive energy efficiency program for the United States.

[FLINT] But, Chris, I think, if you reach consensus on nuclear at the beginning, it indicates that there's good will on both sides, and I think it's the beginning that you can then build upon.

[PAINE] Well, the President has done that for us, in essence.

[FLINT] I agree.

[PAINE] He has moved the administration position. I can't say that there's a unified position within the Democratic Party, but certainly there's a willingness to entertain support for new nuclear plants, and he's advanced a budget to do that, but we haven't got a ringing affirmation from the Republican side that that's sufficient.

[FLINT] Look, I agree with Chris, there's not a deal today, but I can tell you that there is an understanding that nuclear will be a part of it. I think it's something that we can build on. There are contentious issues, no question about it, that's what makes this hard, but I see a glimmer of hope.

[ASSURAS] From a little bit of common ground, at least between you two, let me switch gears if I could, because we'd like to do something here called, "What makes your blood boil?" So, what made your blood boil this week?

[FLINT] Oil prices are moving because of the turmoil in the Middle East, and people are accusing that as being the result of speculators. Well, to me, that makes my blood boil because that's the market phenomena. That's people worried about supply availability and the possibility of disruption, and as a result, there's movement in prices -- that's the way markets work. It makes my blood boil when people say that's inappropriate speculators in the marketplace.

[ASSURAS] Christopher, what about you?

[PAINE] Clearly, the Republican attack on the Environmental Protection Agency, a huge $3 billion cut in the budget. Various amendments attached that would cripple EPA's regulatory authorities in areas that are very important to Americans -- clean air, clean water, protection from a variety of environmental threats. Coupled to, also, a Republican attack on the loan guarantees that we've been discussing. They left the money in for nuclear plants, the more expensive option, and cut out the money for solar and wind and other clean energy options.

[ASSURAS] Certainly, a great deal more to talk about. Alex Flint, Christopher Paine, thank you so much for joining us.

[FLINT] Thank you.