Skip to main content

McCain, Clinton and Obama on Nuclear Power

By
The Wall Street Journal's blog provided some insights on where the three presidential candidates stand on nuclear power.

McCain:
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, policy director for Sen. McCain, said nukes can’t be left out. ‘The Senate Majority leader is the problem—we have Yucca Mountain [storage facility], we have the technology. I can’t see why we don’t take advantage of that,” he said.
Clinton:
Gene Sperling, chief economic adviser for Sen. Clinton and a veteran of the other Clinton White House, made it clear that New York’s junior senator “does not embrace nuclear power,” for a host of reasons ranging from Yucca Mountain’s uncertain storage to worries over nuclear proliferation. She doesn’t want to take nuclear power—which accounts for 20% of U.S. electricity—“off the table,” she just doesn’t want to see any more of the stuff until it dies of natural causes, he said.
Obama:
Jason Grumet, Sen. Obama’s energy adviser, appeared to leave the door cracked open—at first. “We have to overcome the problem, which is that renewable energy alone won’t do it,” he said. But, ticking off nuclear’s worries on his fingers—like safety, storage, and proliferation—he rushed to disavow “current nuclear” technology.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Re: Gene Sperling's comment on behalf of Sen. Clinton, she is smart enough to know that waiting for spent nuclear fuel to "die of natural causes" is not an answer, but Sperling seems not to.
Why do I suspect that her comments (pledge?) to shut down Yucca were intended just for Nevada voters?
March 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Steve Packard said…
Clinton is the most anti-nuclear of the bunch and supports investing billions in dead-end wind/solar projects. She has never said a good thing about nuclear energy.

The only reason it's not "off the table" is politics. Politicians know never to be caught making a binding statement on something like that.
March 21, 2008 at 10:57 PM
nuqlar said…
I knew that Clinton was not nuclear friendly based on her Yucca Mountain stance. I knew that McCain was nuclear friendly. I had thought that Obama was smart enough and moderate enough not to kick nuclear off the table. But it appears that I was wrong.

Growing up in Michigan, I saw too many UAW members vote based on who the union endorsed without regard to the issues. And the union would endorse whichever candidate promised to put more money in the pockets of the workers. On one hand I feel like those UAW members because I am a nuclear engineer and I don't want to see my job become obsolete. On the other hand, I convince myself that voting for nuclear power is *not* just a vote for my job. It is a vote for the best energy option.

When looking at other issues besides energy policy, however, sometimes my argument rings a little hollow.
March 24, 2008 at 3:30 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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more