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
Anonymous 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
Anonymous 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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more