Skip to main content

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

By Eric McErlain
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: , , , , ,

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.
May 27, 2005 at 4:19 PM
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.
January 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM
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.
January 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM
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.
January 27, 2008 at 2:51 AM
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.
February 6, 2008 at 1:43 AM
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.
February 8, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …
1 comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…
Post a Comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…
Post a Comment
Read more