[Velshi:] As Japan reels in crisis, the future of nuclear energy in this country is once again in the hot seat. Robert Kennedy, Jr., has earned a reputation as a staunch protector of the environment, as an activist and attorney specializing in environmental law. While putting everyone's obvious initial reaction to Japan aside, Robert, is it time for more nuclear energy in the United States or less?
[Robert Kennedy Jr., Environmentalist:] Well, you know, I've always said this, Ali. A nuke is good if we can ever make it safe, if we can ever make it commercial. John Roe, who's the head of Exelon, the CEO and president of Exelon, which has the biggest fleet of nuclear power plants in North America said 10 days ago that there is no commercial case for nuclear power in our country. And this was before the big catastrophe in Japan. The problem with nukes is it's too expensive. It cost a conventional power plant either solar, wind, natural gas, oil costs about $3.5 billion a gigawatt. Nuke cost $9 billion to $15 billion a gigawatt. Most recent one built in Finland cost about $10 billion a gigawatt. It's just too expensive and then it's not safe. Anybody who says it's safe, I always say to them then get an insurance policy.
[Velshi:] All right, well
[Kennedy:] If you can't get an insurance policy, the insurance industry in a capitalist system, which we have, is the final arbiter of risk and they've effectively priced it. They've passed the price Anderson Act in our country, which absolves them from accidents from the cost of accidents at nuclear power plants so that if it were radiated by a nuclear accident, you have to pay for it.
[Velshi:] Well, let's get a look, Robert let's take a look at what we have already in this country. About a fifth of our electricity is generated by nuclear power. There are 104 nuclear reactors in this country right now. You're looking at a map with commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. The majority of them as you can see are along the east coast. Some in the Midwest, a few in California, half of them, by the way, half of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States are more than 30 years old. Three million people live within 10 miles of an operating nuclear power plant. Nils Diaz is the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He's managing director of ND2 Group that advances nuclear development in the United States and around the world. Let's just talk about this. It's been said for a long time that people don't have to be concerned about the safety of nuclear plants and that things that go wrong with them are rare. Should people be concerned, given what we've seen in Japan, that something happened and now it seems that they are having great difficulty in getting it under control?
[Nils Diaz, Former Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission:] Well, I think a little bit of rational concern is adequate. I think in our democracy we can see how that works in the favor of the people. But I do believe that nuclear power plants, if you look at the history of operation and compare it to any other industry, they're safe, and they are secure. What happened in Japan is really a triple whammy. It's the earthquake, the tsunami, and then the devastation that
[Velshi:] Well, let's talk about what Americans you mentioned our democracy. Let's talk about how Americans feel about this. David Gergen is CNN senior political analyst. David, take a look at these polls. Even after the nuclear disaster in Japan, Americans remain roughly split on whether they favor or opposed the construction of nuclear power plants here in the United States. Forty-four percent are favor. Forty-seven percent are opposed. Nearly forty percent, however, say they're a lot more concerned that a nuclear disaster could occur here. Take a look at that. And that's since the disaster. About 30 percent are a little more concerned. Almost that number are not more concerned. David, President Obama has been a proponent of nuclear energy. What is this crisis in Japan going to do for efforts on the part of those who would like more nuclear energy in this country?
[David Gergen, Cnn Senior Political Analyst:] The Japanese crisis is a body blow to the nuclear industry in this country, Ali. I think that's clear to everyone. If you went through if you lived through Three Mile Island, you remember how that eroded confidence in nuclear power so much. And we were just in the last few years getting over our fears and people in the nuclear power industry were talking about a renaissance of nuclear power in this country. We had leading environmentalist Fred Crupp of the Environmental Defense Fund, for example, seriously entertain conversations about nuclear power because of the cleanness of nuclear power versus fossil fuels. And it looked as if we were just starting to go over the hump and there were going to be investors and public confidence in the politicians. When a Democratic president came out and embraced nuclear power, as President Obama did, that was a big milestone. But all of this now, I think, has been dealt a body blow. And I would be surprised if we build another nuclear power plant in this country in the next 10 years.
[Velshi:] Wow. All right, Robert, in the last few years, nuclear energy has been branded as a cleaner, better alternative to coal, which is a serious pollutant I think you would agree with that oil, which is volatile and exposed to geopolitical problems and is not endlessly in supply. Wind and solar, great, but strictly supplemental. Despite what some people have said in the last week about how we can replace all of our electricity with solar and wind, we do not have the infrastructure or the geography for that right now. Tell me the best solution to this.
[Kennedy:] Well, that's wrong. You know, we built a nuclear power fleet in about 25 years in this country. We can move and build a solar fleet and wind fleet much, much faster. Right now, one of my companies, I'm on the board of Vantage Point, which is the biggest green tech venture capital firm in the country. One of our portfolio companies, Bright Source, is building the biggest power plant one of the biggest power plants in North America ever built of any kind, 2.7 gigawatts. It's almost three times the size of a nuclear power plant. We're going to build the whole plant within three years. It would take 10 to 20 years to build a nuke plant, takes 10 years to build a coal plant. We're building it at a cost of about $3.5 billion a gigawatt. Nuclear power plants cost $9 billion to $12 billion a gigawatt. So they just can't compete against us in the market
[Velshi:] What kind of power are you using to generate electricity at that
[Kennedy:] Solar
[Velshi:] Well, that's definitely a problem on any front for using any alternative energy, whether we want to go to more solar or more wind. That's a big deal. Nils, let me ask you. Do we, can we go further without expanding nuclear generation in this country?
[Diaz:] Can we go further? No. Nuclear generation needs to be part of this mix and it needs to be at least in the 20 percent to 30 percent park. And you know, the numbers and economics, we can have a long discussion about that. But the reality is that nuclear power plants operate at 90 percent capacity factor, while solar is at the very most 20 percent and wind is at the very most 30 percent to 35 percent. So they are intermittent. They have to come and go. We have to have other sources to come in. We have to have storage. We have to have transmission. They're good. We like them. We want them to come on, but we also need to have nuclear power to anchor the grid, to provide reliable electricity all the time. And it's competitive. It is not cheaper, but it is competitive.
[Velshi:] Very good to hear you, though, say that you can get that much out of wind and solar. There are some people who think those numbers might even be a little high. David, let me ask you you mentioned that it was a real milestone when President Obama, a Democratic president, decided to embrace further construction of nuclear power plants in this country. In the aftermath of Three Mile Island, which you mentioned, or Chernobyl, as Robert mentioned, no American president would have come out that same week saying nuclear power is a key part of our energy future. Why is President Obama feeling secure in saying this now, and is he right?
[Gergen:] I'm not sure he feels secure. I think he's trying to push it along and preserve it. But the truth is, Ali, he's got his energy policies right now are incoherent because he's had so much trouble. When he came into office, he and his people in the administration thought he was in the driver's seat on energy and environmental policy, and they started off with a lot of good ideas. But look what's happened. You know, they wanted to do more in offshore oil. Along came the BP power spill, blew out that tire. They wanted to do more with renewable energy, and along came the question of cap-and-trade, couldn't get it through. That's fallen apart, blew out that tire. There's a lot more natural gas that's now available to us, available because of new technologies, expensive, but we could do that. Environmentalists are opposing it. That tire is very weak. It's almost blown out. And now nuclear power, the other part of this, that tire blew out this week over in Japan. So when you look at it, what's going to beyond the deficits, one of the most important things the political leaders in Washington now must do is go back to the drawing boards. What is going to be the national energy policy of this country that is both clean and provides enough energy for a growing economy? Those are hard questions today.
[Velshi:] Yes. There's nobody who this doesn't affect the cost of heating your home, running your business, operating your car, the air you breathe, your health care. This is this appeals to everybody across the board. Thank you for a great discussion. Maybe you think it's bad form to make money off of natural disasters. We'll tell you why you're wrong and how you do it guilt- free next.