Friday, May 27, 2005

Senator Obama: Climate Change, Air Quality Keeps Nuclear Energy On the Table

Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of "common sense solutions." And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind:

[A]s Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.
For the rest of the statements from yesterday's hearing, click here.

Thanks to Paul Primavera of the Know Nukes and Safe, Clean Nuclear Power groups on Yahoo.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

6 comments:

Norris McDonald said...

Isn't this great. I met with Obama's environment legislative assistant about two months ago and we discussed nuclear power. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they were open to accepting nuclear power as a reasonable technology.

Of course, this does not necessarily mean that Senator Obama is going to vote for the energy bill or McCain/Lieberman. Senator Obama has also introduced an interesting ethanol subsidy bill.

Anonymous said...

Obama and Clinton are taking money from he nuclear industry and will help us destroy our Earth with nuclear waste. Only Edwards is not on the take with the nuke pushers.

Anonymous said...

They're "open" to nuclear energy because they're taking money from the industry. Nobody gets very far without being corrupted and Obama and Clinton are both on the take from he nuclear industry. So far only Edwards is smart enough to not want to pollute our earth with nuclear waste.

Nuke101 said...

I like how this guy thinks no one will realize he wrote both of those posts... and on "polluting our earth with nuclear waste," read into it. A vast majority of "waste" can be reconditioned into usable fuel again, and again etc. Sounds to me like so far only Edwards is naive enough to think carbon emissions and relying heavily on foreign oil is a good idea.

Anonymous said...

One major consideration that gets overlooked in these debates is that the funding of new nuclear power plants would be provided by private capital, and therefore only where it would be determined to be profitable. Also, any nuclear construction in North America requires the constructor to put aside funds for adequate waste disposal and decommissioning at the time of construction. Basically, government gives the go ahead but not considerably more.

ExperiencedNuke said...

Nuclear power is cheaper than any other method of procuding electricity except hydro. Coal can transformed into liquid vehicle fuel. It is being done on an industrial scale in South Africa. I would much rather spend money on becoming energy independence than send it to muslim coutries to fund terrorism. Nuclear power is a big part of energy independence.