The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a relatively quick 90-day review of every nuclear plant in the country to assess their preparedness in emergencies. That's the government's short-term response to the crisis in Japan. But what about the long-term outlook for nuclear power, which currently accounts for about 20% of our electricity?

Well, time now for theMIX, and we are joined by nuclear physicist James Acton of Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program, known around the world for its expertise on all things nuclear. Also with us, Dave Hamilton, who is the director of the Global Warming and Energy Program of the environmental group the Sierra Club. And welcome to both of you gentlemen.

So, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission launches this review of every single reactor, but other countries in the world, like Germany and Italy, are saying, "Slow down," or are closing down reactors. Do they know something we don't know? And is our response good enough? I'll start with you, David.

[HAMILTON] I just think that part of this is driven by what is a meltdown in public opinion, and a meltdown for the support of nuclear power around the world, like we've seen in public opinion polls in this country already. Support for nuclear power has now fallen way below a majority. And I think many of the responses in Europe are based on the fact that their populations are even more sensitive to safety concerns and more sensitive to the risks and downsides of nuclear power than we have been.

[ASSURAS] James, is the NRC's response good enough, a quick sort of shotgun look over 90 days?

[ACTON] I think it's a sensible first step. But I think what we really need here is a much more fundamental review of nuclear power, its safety aspects. The huge accident at Fukushima resulted from the plant being hit by a bigger earthquake and particularly tsunami than it was designed to withstand. And you could have the best-run, the most modern, advanced reactor in the world, but if it's hit by a bigger accident than it's designed to withstand, you can't guarantee its safety.

[ASSURAS] The real question then, maybe, is, do we need nuclear energy at all?

[ACTON] I think nuclear energy is a necessary evil. The policy issue that worries me most is global warming, and I can't see how we can mitigate the extremes of global warming without, actually, all forms of low-carbon energy. That absolutely includes energy efficiency and renewables, but I think we need nuclear there as part of the mix.

[ASSURAS] Go ahead, please.

[HAMILTON] We need to start with the U.S. Congress actually getting serious about energy policy and looking at it from, what are the public benefits of different forms of energy? When you look at what's cheapest, what's cleanest, what's safest, what's going to come on line the most quickly, and, unfortunately, nuclear falls to the bottom, on safety, on cost, on, you know, it can take 10 years to build a plant. What are our best alternatives for the public? And how do we move on the most quickly?

[ASSURAS] Which raises the question again, James, when nuclear fails, it fails spectacularly, and people are frightened. There are risks, and I used the word "frightened" purposefully. But there are risks with all other forms of energy. Is any energy safe?

[ACTON] It's exactly as you say. There are risks associated with all forms of energy. I mean, most obviously, high-carbon forms of energy lead to the risk of global warming. Over-reliance at this stage on renewables and energy efficiency, which I absolutely support, creates the risk of not producing enough energy when we need it further down the line. I don't see how we can do without a relatively low-carbon form of energy like nuclear as part of that broader mix. It's not a panacea.

[HAMILTON] I've got to disagree, because you have to look at what time frame are we talking about. We have to keep the lights on -- we agree with that. We have to be able to give the American economy the energy that it needs to function and thrive.

[ASSURAS] What's the mix?

[HAMILTON] Well, there's seven times our current electricity consumption in solar resources in the southwest. So, how do we bring that online? How do we bring online offshore wind? How do we really attack -- I mean, we are the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. How do we attack that waste as if it was an energy source? But if you're talking about replacing an energy-inefficient steam trap with an efficient steam trap, that's a pretty low-risk piece of generation right there. But you have to think about waste as an energy source, just like a vein of coal. And what time period are you trying to make up that energy?

[ASSURAS] You're saying Americans aren't going to wait for their energy, so you are going to see oil, gas, coal, and perhaps even nuclear. What are Americans willing to sacrifice?

[HAMILTON] Unless we are willing to put the kind of initiative -- We've kept the renewables industry dangling for 20 years. We passed a production tax credit 20 years ago and it's expired twice. It's completely disrupted the industry and financial markets. We have never made a national commitment to renewables. We have barely done anything on efficiency. So we've barely even started to investigate what are the cheapest, quickest, safest, and cleanest sources.

[ASSURAS] Barely started, and, James, the last question to you. Nuclear -- investors were not getting into nuclear, so was it just a pipe dream that there was a resurgence of expansion of the nuclear power industry?

[ACTON] Well, it would have been fascinating to see, had this accident not happened. There's no question that nuclear has its challenges, and one of those is the enormous up-front capital costs. Now, the industry's hope was always that after you got the first few reactors up and running, the cost of building new reactors would go down, the time taken to build them would go down.

[ASSURAS] And federal subsidies in there, as well, would push it, if that happens.

[ACTON] And there were the federal subsidies in there. Whether or not that theory would have worked in practice is something that we don't know and maybe now we won't know.

[ASSURAS] David, your response to that.

[HAMILTON] The terrible economics of nuclear power has had, a lot of people have been interested in reactors and canceled them. I think that it was hanging by a thread to begin with. The Japanese crisis may snip that thread, as people get a crash course in radiation, the limits of technology, and human error, and realize that... all the risk is going onto the public. All the cost of that accident -- It's not all the cost, there's a limit, but the Japanese have liability protection in the same way that we do. The Japanese people are going to pay the tab for that nuclear accident. And we're in the same situation. If it fails financially, because of loan guarantees, we're going to pay the cost, so I think understanding that it's not a real industry that stands on its own financial feet is a very important thing.

[ASSURAS] Gentlemen, so many lessons to learn. Thank you very much for joining us.

[ACTON] Thank you.