Proposed: How much should the U.S. rely on nuclear energy?

We already have an issue covering this debate under "Nuclear energy."

Jacki is right, we should find a more elegant way to avoid framing this issue.

Is nuclear power a good alternative to carbon-emitting power plants?

i hate "how much'

issue prior to revisions:

The wording of this is kind of stilted and silly. What about,

How much should the U.S. rely on nuclear energy?
-More
-Less
-Current levels

issue prior to revisions:

Maybe we should go with jacki's then...

What amount of nuclear energy should the U.S. use?

More
Less

I think Vizi's last wording is actually a good one. In this case, U.S. can refer to everyone: Fed/State/and Private and frames it more as a theoretical question, which i think works well.

Same problem as the alternative fuel issue. What entity is doing the investing, and to what end? The government, the energy industry, etc.?

Okay, if not "promote the development," how about, "Should the U.S. invest more in nuclear energy/power plants?"

Great

"Promote and expand" sounds like we've evangelizing overseas for nuclear power. I prefer "rely" or some variant of it. Also, "nuclear power plants" instead of "nuclear energy," unless you propose replacing your oil burner with an atomic pile.

This revision sounds good.

There's definitely a debate on whether we should shift more to nuclear to ease our dependence on oil.  I do like the angle of 

"Should the U.S. promote the development and expansion of nuclear energy?"

Now, at least, we have an issue! Reasonable people may disagree. 

Now, for the wording. Isn't the issue less whether we should "rely," and more on whether we should "promote"? I.e., "Should the U.S. promote the development and expansion of nuclear energy?"

it's framed.  not sure if this is any better:

What amount of nuclear energy should the U.S. use?

More
Less

Why not?