President Obama laid out an all-of-the-above energy policy in a speech to national business leaders this afternoon: America need nuclear, solar, energy efficiency, and expanded oil and gas production, he said, and “to truly transition to a clean energy economy, we need to put a price on carbon pollution.”

His words suggest White House support for the framework Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are using to write a compromise climate and energy bill.

The wildcard, of course, for that bill — which could be introduced as early as next month — and for any Senate action remains the price on carbon.

The dramatic potential for a meltdown and the dilemma posed by spent fuel tend to dominate discussions of nuclear power’s drawbacks, making it easy to forget the front end of that equation: uranium mining.

The United States imports the bulk of its nuclear fuel, but there are large deposits of uranium, mostly in the western part of the country, that could be mined. A new report from the U.S. Geological Survey looks at one such parcel of land in the Grand Canyon watershed area. It suggests that previous mining activity in the region has not resulted in serious contamination of soil or groundwater, but environmental groups and others are still trying to halt what they fear could become a huge upsurge in uranium mining activity.

In his Feb. 10 article "Obama: The Making of a Clean Coal President," David Sassoon wrote about the U.S. president's creation of a task force to develop a national carbon capture and storage strategy, calling it as a victory for the coal industry and describing how the backing of green groups had helped to cement Obama's support for CCS technology.

NRDC Climate Programs Director David Hawkins wrote the following response.

By David Hawkins

Let me offer a few thoughts on why I believe this task force actually is a step forward for all of us who want to put an end to investments in new polluting coal plants, increase our reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and prevent disastrous climate disruption.

Our community uses several tactics to block new polluting coal plants. We intervene in permit proceedings and bring lawsuits to challenge coal plant permits. NRDC has actively used this tactic, joining the outstanding efforts by the Sierra Club and others. Another tactic, that NRDC also has pursued, is advocacy with Wall Street investors to convince them that investments in new polluting coal plants are a bad bet. A third is advocacy for performance standards that would make it legally impossible for new polluting coal plants to be built. NRDC worked hard to get such a law enacted in California and is seeking such standards in federal legislation. A fourth is to create a broad consensus that no new coal plant should be built unless it captures its carbon.

This last approach, which NRDC has pursued as well, is controversial in our community because it does not call for an absolute bar on new coal plants regardless of environmental performance and it lends legitimacy to carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

A new nuclear reactor design being backed by the United States may not be durable enough to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes or a direct airplane hit, American regulators have said, raising security concerns as the country attempts an atomic revival.

President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees this week for two new reactors planned at an existing Southern Company nuclear site some 170 miles east of Atlanta, Georgia.

The reactors would use the AP1000 third-generation technology designed by Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse, one of the world's largest makers of nuclear turbines.

The company says the AP1000 is the "safest" nuclear power plant on the market. A full one-half of 440 reactors on the books worldwide are based on it, according to its figures. In America, around 12 AP1000s are planned.

But the design has yet to get safety clearance in the U.S., and it is not generating electricity anywhere in the world.

On Capitol Hill, the ship of state is so bereft of rudder and sail that the crew is jumping overboard. The latest to abandon ship is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, who minced no words about the dysfunctional Congress he is choosing to leave.

Forget for a moment about health care and financial reform. On national energy and environmental issues, which have been stalled in the congressional queue, we have a critical national security threat, a danger to public health and welfare, and national policy that encourages American families to inadvertently fund terrorists.

Those are among the reasons the paralyzing partisanship on Capitol Hill is so serious a dereliction of duty.

So what can the president of the United States do? Quite a lot if he’s willing to use the executive powers he’s been given by the Constitution, the courts and past Congresses.