What it means

Being nuclear-inclusive means that, even if you don’t like the concept of nuclear power, you accept the inclusion of nuclear energy as a necessary means of solving our global climate crisis because:

1  We need to use all available tools We have a responsibility to our children and future generations to recognize the seriousness of the risks posed by climate change and use every clean energy tool at our disposal in the fight to prevent catastrophic climate tipping points from being reached.
2 We’ve not been very effective to date
Scientists think we could be on brink of approaching severe tipping points, which means we don’t have the luxury of time any more; if what we’ve done has not worked to stop emissions, it is clear that we need to try another approach — and what could be better than banding together with those who are our natural allies in our fight (even if we don’t see eye-to-eye on everything) and doubling or tripling our size?
3 We should be conservative about adding risk We agree it makes no sense to gamble our planet on a more limited set of energy choices that  excludes nuclear, when the larger, more diverse portfolio of energy options and bigger coalition of advocates and developers provide a much greater likelihood that we can meet our emissions reduction goals prior to the time that climate tipping points will be reached.
4 We hurt our cause tying our own hands arbitrarily We recognize choosing to exclude nuclear from our arsenal is intentionally denying ourselves access to the one and only source of always-on, reliable clean energy, which forces us into continued dependence on fossil fuels for grid reliability and this is clearly self-defeating.
5 We must resist other priorities that cause backward steps We believe that closing existing U.S. nuclear power plants, as some wish to do, runs directly counter to our efforts to reduce our emissions as these plants provide 60% of our total clean energy.  Given how large each nuclear power plant is, these closures costs billions to taxpayers and cause big steps backward in our battle against emissions by eliminating existing clean generation rather than eliminating other dirty energy generation.
6  1960-era nuclear is not perfect but is clearly safe when done right
Even if we believe that traditional nuclear has serious flaws, we acknowledge that there have been no deaths from reactor accidents in the U.S. and that the safe use of nuclear power has helped to clean the air whenever it has supplanted fossil fuel generation, and this has prevented many thousands of deaths from fossil fuel pollution and accidents.  Globally, nuclear is credited with saving nearly 2 million lives.
7  21st century nuclear can and will get vastly better, like all technologies
Even if we believe that traditional nuclear reactors are not ideal for terrestrial energy, we acknowledge that there are many alternative ways to harness the power of the atom and young nuclear engineers striving to develop innovative reactor designs — through fission, fusion or other methods — deserve a chance to explore these engineering frontiers and prove what can be done.
8  Nuclear should not be discriminated against We believe in free competition, the power of technology innovation to help us solve our most thorny problems, and we don’t think the government should be in the business of picking technology winners or losers. Therefore, nuclear power should be allowed to compete.
9  Others are investing heavily in nuclear R&D We recognize that, even if some of us prefer not to see further development of nuclear power in the U.S., other countries such as China, Canada, Russia, France, India, and Korea are all investing heavily to design, develop and commercialize new advanced nuclear reactors.  These new reactors will be sold around the world to meet the growing demand for reliable, clean energy, regardless of whether or not the U.S. participates.
10  American companies should be able to compete We have an interest in not excluding American companies from competing in such a large and important global market that, while small now, needs to grow large enough to supplant all sales of fossil fuels related to energy consumption.
11 American national security interests may be at stake If no American companies are engaging in development of Advanced Nuclear, then it may preclude the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from a role in setting safety standards for any such reactor designs.  Lack of American expertise in the developing technologies could pose a national security risk.
12 We’ll benefit from a bigger coalition, especially now If a majority of those who are most concerned about climate change are Democrats and a majority of those who support nuclear power are Republicans, uniting these two constituencies could make a huge difference in whether we can move ahead with emissions reduction targets in a Republican-controlled Congress and Administration.