Skip to main content

Nuclear Engineers on John Edwards and Yucca Mountain

Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides and her husband watched John Edwards on Meet The Press on Sunday, and they weren't happy with what he had to say about nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain:
My 30 year old Hispanic husband and I watched Tim Russert this past Sunday and were incredibly disappointed with the uneducated statement John Edwards made concerning Yucca Mountain. We are both nuclear engineers who are proud to work as environmentalist on a daily basis to supply the needed electricity for our country.

I will gladly vote for a candidate who supports a national call for conservation, but I cannot support a candidate who does not understand the fundamental basis nuclear power supplies for our energy security. I became a nuclear engineer because I believe the millennia generation will need to do more than just debate the energy question, but constantly work to solve it. My husband and I help create an emissions free base load energy supply for millions of US citizens. Nuclear Power is not dependent on the Middle East for oil and I personally ensure that our plant is a good environmental steward by operating within environmental guidelines.

Simply stating that nuclear waste should stay near its home location is a policy that continues a broken promise by the federal government. John Edwards should consider a policy that includes updating US technology to reprocess used nuclear fuel and continuing the necessary research and construction of a permanent fuel repository.
For more, visit the African-American Environmentalist Association.

UPDATE: More thoughts from DCS Security.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I didn't see Meet the Press with John Edwards, but I am not surprised to hear of Mr. Edwards comments. Why? He's a former trial lawyer; probably hasn't taken a science class since high school biology. He made millions suing corporations, hospitals, etc. He has never done any productive "work" in today's society (including his stint in congress). So to hear that he has made inane comments regarding Yucca Mountain, the science supporting the project, etc. does not surprise me the least. Having been a failed VP candidate, perhaps he should devote his life towards something more productive than another failed attempt at public office.
Anonymous said…
Edwards should be more supportive of nuclear energy if for no other reason that he lives in the South where there is quite a bit of nuclear capacity, some of which helps power that 28,200 sq. ft. mansion he just moved into. From the looks of the land around it, he had to clear-cut quite a few trees as well to make room to build it on his 102 acres of land. Well, Edwards likes to talk their being "two Americas". I wonder which one someone who has a 28,200 sq. ft. mansion would belong to? Heck, I've only got 1500 sq. ft. in a tract development and I'm happy to have some of my electricity come from nuclear.
Na. Nadir said…
Personally, my guess is that Yucca Mountain is a really, really, really bad idea.

I can imagine nothing worse than burying the valuable materials is spent nuclear fuel.

At the least, at the very least, the uranium in spent fuel - as well as all of the other actinides needs to be recovered.

It may be true that there needs to be a central facility at some point for spent fuel - a centralized approach. But as a firm supporter of nuclear energy I am convinced that Yucca Mountain is not the ideal solution, by a long shot.

We can raise all sorts of irrelevant points about Mr. Edwards and his career, but for the long term - maybe not the short term, but for the long term - the ideal solution is to do as little as is possible about the "problem" of so called "nuclear waste."

NNadir
Anonymous said…
I don't think the points made in the earlier posts concerning the background and career of Mr. Edwards or his own lifestyle vs. the positions he advocates as public policy are irrelevant. He has declared himself a candidate for the highest elective office in the land. As such, almost everything about him is subject to public scrutiny. The people have a right to know where a candidate stands, what his/her beliefs are, how well they practice what they preach. All of these relate in some manner to issues of character, morals, integrity, honesty, and dependability. Most of us believe these to be important for one who seeks elective office.
Frank McKinnon said…
I came across this blog while searching for a presidential candidate that would take a stand of protecting America from the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). I didn’t have an opportunity to listen to John Edwards, and don’t know what he said. Can any of you let me know whether or not there is a transcript of his speech?

http://www.frankmckinnon.com

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

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…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…