Skip to main content

Mike Huckabee on Energy and the Environment

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is the latest Presidential candidate to talk to Grist about his positions on energy and the environment. Here's his answer on nuclear energy:
Q. Do you think we need to expand the role of nuclear power in the U.S.?

A. Absolutely. France is almost completely nuclear, and it's not like they're a nation given to risky behaviors. There's been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded. I mean, we've been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mike Huckabee is a Republican. I expect their Presidential candidates to openly support nuclear energy. How many in the Democrat field provide such support? John Edwards? What about Hillary? She's made noises, but has come out openly against IPEC. What about Obama? He's come out openly against Davis Besse.

Now Dominici is retiring from the Senate next year and nuke power loses a strong voice on the Energy sub-committee.

Mark my words: elect a Democrat for President in 2008, and the whole tone of the NRC will change.

And you ALL know that to be true.

I don't believe in catering to the whims and fancies of such people when they make noises that sound pro-nuke, but do things that are anti-nuke.

As the Romans always said: Facta, Non Verba!
robert merkel said…
Anonymous:

1) The Democrats aren't going away, and in fact may well hold the White House and both houses of Congress in 2009 for reasons that have little to do with nuclear energy.

2) The nuclear industry/community's ability to change this outcome is limited to the margins.

3) Republicans as a group have, as you've noted, consistently supported nuclear energy, though there are undoubtedly exceptions. Democrats are divided on the issue, with a few strong supporters, a fair number of implacably opposed, and others somewhere in between.

4) I suspect in most of the congressional districts where nuclear energy is an issue, the major party candidates take the same view on it.

Given all of the above, it would seem to me that people who care about supporting nuclear energy - whether as professionals or as other interested parties - would be putting much of their general effort into persuading moderate Democrats.
Anonymous said…
Robert,

While I care a great deal about the success of commercial nuclear power, I shall never vote Democrat, nor shall I ingratiate myself with them in the faint hope that they may change their foolish ways and support nuclear power. Truthfully, while I find their anti-nuclear position to be childish and silly, my reasons for opposing the Democrat Party have little to do with nuclear power. But nevertheless, mark my words: elect a Democrat President and the whole pro-nuclear, "let's build new plants climate" will change - and for the worse. Oh, the Democrats might not go away right now, but when they finish, United States power will certainly be gone.
Anonymous said…
United States power is waning and will continue to diminish for a while now thanks mainly to the lack of leadership of W. and his revolving door cabinet of losers.
As a scientist, I can tell you there is nothing foolish about the opposition to nuclear power, the main reason for doing so being the lack of a safe way to dispose of or utilize the waste by-products. It is an unnecessarily complex way to boil water and still creates problems heating the nearby waterways and the environment generally. O'Bama is the only Dem front runner I've heard support it "

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

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…