An ad campaign launched by the organization in 2006 was designed to show that nuclear energy is consistent with environmentalism, that the public actually wants and accepts nuclear power, and that nuclear power should be one of the sources that weans the U.S. off of foreign energy sources.
The NEI publishes information on the production of nuclear energy. Notable on their website are their statistics on “fuel costs”, “operations and maintenance”, and “production costs”– which they claim is lower than conventional utility costs in these same areas. The NEI states that the average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2007 was $.47 cents per kilowatt-hour. The organization stated that because nuclear plants refuel every 18 to 24 months, they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants. Their numbers for “operations and maintenance (non-fuel)” in 2007 was $1.29 per kilowatt-hour. “Production costs”, which include fuel and o&m, allegedly are the lowest among coal, natural gas and oil. The NEI further adds that fuel costs make up 27% of the overall production costs of nuclear power plants, while fuel costs for coal, natural gas and oil make up more than 75% of the production costs. Addressing “waste management”, the NEI provides data that indicates that “Funds Committed for the Nuclear Waste Fund” are $29.9 billion— which is 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated at nuclear power plants, plus interest, since 1983. Of the $29.9 billion, $9.5 billion has been spent. Payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund are included in fuel costs.
NEI President and Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Bowman has the ear of Congress. In a June 2008 address, Bowman, who was once director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, addressed Congress regarding carbon emissions stating:

“First, we see a growing consensus that any credible program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and worldwide will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, and that nuclear energy is an indispensable part of that portfolio. This conclusion is supported by an impressive body of mainstream research and analysis. [..] …it is imperative to address the major investment challenge facing the electric power sector as it seeks to develop and deploy the low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”

New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least six to seven billion dollars. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size, financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects or balance sheets on their own…

Bowman further added that:
“In terms of new nuclear plant construction, one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least six to seven billion dollars. U.S. electric power companies do not have the size, financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects or balance sheets, on their own–particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity, transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls. These first projects must have financing support–either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments, or both.”

Even though Americans may be open-minded, the task of convincing them to embrace nuclear power might not be easy. Skeptics of nuclear power argue that the NEI publishes misleading information about safety factors, emissions, and cost factors. They point out that the organization devotes significant money to lobbying efforts to advance it positions.

At as speech at Columbia, South Carolina, Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth, an international network of environmental organizations, and Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment in the Energy Department spoke out against nuclear energy. As quoted in The Herald, Blackwelder stated that “The idea that this somehow might be a clean solution to global warming is a misconception […] They’re going to have insurmountable problems with the waste. If you can’t handle it now, how can you possibly launch forward like this? It’s quicker to launch energy efficiency programs and develop alternative energy sources than to try to build a nuclear power plant, which can take years to receive environmental approvals.”

Critics also claim that nuclear power poses very dangerous affects to the public. Further, they outright dispute whether the risks associated with disposal can actually be reduced with the host of new technologies on the market. Transport and storing of radioactive waste remains a major talking point among skeptics. In addition, centralized electrical production sites may not be cost effective.

Look for competing and ongoing campaigns from multiple parties to emerge as the heat is turned up on energy in the U.S., and efforts are increased to win over Washington, Wall Street, and the Heartland.