Monday, August 13, 2007

Hillary Clinton on Nuclear Energy

Grist has put together a page detailing the environmental positions of all the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, and is also fronting an interview with Senator Hillary Clinton on her environmental positions. Here's her take on nuclear energy:

Q. What about nuclear power?

A. I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear.
For previous posts on Clinton's position, click here and here.

Thanks to Ben Smith for the pointer.


Doug said...

What does Sen. Clinton think we should "put a heavy emphasis on" then? Are we going to hear the same old conservation mantra? If so, fine, but now square that with continued use of fossil energy for the balance, as well as projected growth in demand, especially if vehicles go electric this century. Going to hear the same old free-energy fantasies about renewables? If so, great, let's hear where the facilities will be located, how much land will be covered over, and how intermittency will be buffered without some gee-whiz technology that's still in the lab and/or way too expensive to implement.

Anonymous said...

Amen, brother. Woman speaks with forked tongue.

She is just another talking head that is part of the "no solutions" committee.

To say that she is "agnostic" is a downright lie. Look at her record with respect to Indian Point. She has been doing everything that she can to cause a permanent shutdown of Indian Point in representation of her people.

Alex Smith said...

I was hoping that Hillary knew that without nuclear, non carbon emitting energy cannot compete with coal on the global scale and that we will all die soon when the planet over heats. However, she believes the same crap that the NIMBYs (not in my backyard) down the street believe: nukes are too scarey and I don't want a plant near my kids. What about when the planet dies? Would that be better than some glass-covered marbles of waste a mile below the desert?