Earlier this month, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cleared a path for two new nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia. There’s some question, however, about whether this is a road we should be headed down. Coming close to the 33-year anniversary of Three Mile Island and not even a year after the Fukushima disaster, the timing itself is enough to ask the question—are we ready for new nukes?

At least four members of the five-member commission seem to think so, not only giving the green light to Atlanta-based Southern Company to begin constructing two new reactors at its Vogtle plant near Waynesboro, but also issuing its first ever combined construction and operation license, which will allow the company to bring the reactors online more quickly.

Dissenting commissioner, Chairman Greg Jaczko, brought up the specter of the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant last March as explanation for his vote.

"I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened," the Huffington Post quoted Jaczko as saying after the vote at the commission's headquarters.

In July, a Commission task force issued 12 recommendations to strengthen U.S. reactor resilience based on lessons learned when Fukushima lost electrical power following a massive earthquake and tsunami. Jaczko has been vocal in his determination to see those recommendations implemented in less than five years—a huge step up from the historically glacial NRC pace.

In the case of the proposed reactors, Jaczko wanted a binding commitment from Southern Company that those enhancements would be in effect before the facility opened, but the company refused, according to the Post. His insistence on regulation has earned him a hard-to-please reputation among industry leaders.

“Despite the newest technology being used, and despite substantial differences in location and risk when compared to the Fukushima plant, the chairman opposed action,” Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, told industry journal EnergyBiz. “Frankly, it leads us to wonder if any nuclear advancement will be good enough for the Chairman….”

The newest technology—a yet-to-be-built water pressurized design called the AP1000 that is smaller, cheaper, and said to be safer than reactors built decades ago—isn’t without its detractors, either.

Although touted for its ability to prevent overheating even during power loss, there were concerns about the reactor shield building's strength in the event of an earthquake, plane crash, or other disaster. That worry led the NRC to request reactor manufacturer Westinghouse to modify the design in 2010—a modification that was approved in late December without the usual 30-day waiting period, according to the New York Times. Possible problems caused by the shield building no longer offering an additional layer of containment in case of a containment vessel breach where not addressed.

Even for those satisfied that this new variety of reactor could withstand a Fukushima-scale event, there are plenty of other reasons opponents don’t want to see new reactors built.

“The potential is high for cost overruns, regulatory problems, outage issues, competing water needs in the state, drought situations, radioactive waste management issues and a range of ratepayer issues,” the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in a filing with the Georgia Public Service Commission, according to the New York Times.

The Southern Alliance has joined forces with other groups to oppose the Vogtle plant license and worked to make sure that the lessons of Fukushima are incorporated in new and existing nuclear operations. The Alliance saw at least a little progress Wednesday, when the NRC announced that it would work on implementing the first three task force recommendations by 2016.

"Each of the orders is focused on enhancing defense in depth at nuclear power plants through increased capabilities to minimize the potential for core damage following a beyond design basis external event," Reuters quoted an NRC memo as stating.

Among the recommendations to be instituted are increased planning for disaster events and multiple reactor shutdowns, improvements in instruments that monitor spent fuel pools, and overhauls of vent systems similar to the ones that failed at Daiichi. The new Vogtle reactors, which could be completed as early as 2016, would be required to follow the recommendations as well, Reuters reported.

Although the execution of the recommendations will be a long time coming and the safety of the latest generation of reactors has yet to be evaluated in real life, it’s perhaps the most the United States can hope for if it’s committed to generating nuclear energy. Other options might be something like the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines.

Unlike the United States, Philippine leaders hearken to the lessons of past nuclear disasters. In the wake of Chernobyl, they shut down the brand-new Bataan plant without ever generating a watt of energy, according to a New York Times story. Recently slated again to be put into service, the plant took another hit when Fukushima melted down. It’s now relegated as a tourist attraction, where former nuclear technicians give guided tours.