Planet Panel

washingtonpost.com/planetpanel

Excerpts from comments by The Post's panel of experts on climate change.

Q How realistic are the projections for an increase in nuclear power plants in the coming decades?

Nigel Sheinwald, British ambassador to the United States

In sum, very realistic. Our experience in the United Kingdom has shown that if you are seriously committed to a low-carbon, reliable and diverse energy mix, with the strictest modern safety measures, then you must consider nuclear energy. For this reason, we have backed an expansion of nuclear power, which has broad-based political support. We will approve new power stations only if industry proposals can demonstrate they have effective arrangements for managing the waste they produce and funds to pay for the decommissioning.

Donald F. Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and vice chancellor for environmental sustainability for the University System of Maryland

Nuclear power can play some role in America's sustainable-energy future in the long run, but don't count on it to slow climate change. [It] is highly unlikely to replace very much fossil-fuel power in the United States during the next few decades because of the length of time required to design, permit, construct and bring next-generation nuclear power plants into operation; high costs even in contrast to renewable energy; and the high risk of delays, which dissuades investors. While the United States should try to resolve these barriers as well as the difficult long-term waste-storage problem, nuclear power can't be the silver bullet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the time frame required.

For additional responses, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/planetpanel. Follow climate change policy news at http://www.washingtonpost.com/climate.