Skip to main content

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.

Comments

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?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

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 …

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…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

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…