Skip to main content

The Candidates in Their Own Words

In the interest of fairness, we looked for a few actual quotes from the remaining Presidential candidates on nuclear energy. All of these quotes have appeared on NEI Nuclear Notes before, but it might be useful to gather them together.

First, Hilary Clinton at a campaign stop in South Carolina in October of last year (a little cleaned up from the transcript):

I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution. I think we've got to do a better job at figuring out how we're going to deal with the waste. You know, because in a post 9/11 world we've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants.

I don't have any preconceived opposition. I want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can, because obviously it's a tremendous source of energy. We get about twenty percent of our energy from nuclear power in our country. A lot of people don't realize that. And other countries, like France, get much much more.

So we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air. But we have to make sure it's done as safely as possible.

Second, Barack Obama from the Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College last September:

I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can't, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We're going to have to look at all the various options.

Third, John McCain, in an Interview with The Detroit News’ editorial board in January of this year:

I believe we can and are developing technologies that can have a dramatic effect on greenhouse gas emissions. I believe we have to go back to nuclear power. Why can’t we look at what the French have done? About 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. And they are the closest to meeting the Kyoto goals that they set for themselves.

Odd to see candidates on both sides of the partisan divide bowing to the French - aren't they wrong about everything? - but otherwise, all three candidates are saying publicly that nuclear energy cannot be ignored. Candidates frequently finesse their statements based on their audiences, as we saw when the Democrats clamored over each other to be the first to torpedo Yucca Mountain at the Nevada debate, but these are clear, public statements of support.

Ironically, it is Al Gore, surely no friend of nuclear energy, who has cornered Democrats into acknowledging that America cannot address climate change without nuclear. Further, despite a continuing debate in popular culture, no one in government goes very far out of their way to dispute climate change or the role of nuclear in mitigating carbon emission.

Nuclear energy has walked through the door that Al Gore kicked down, and no Democrat seems to have a way to get that door back on its hinges. In many cases, they even like the breeze that comes through.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And both Hillary and Obama have issued statement against nuclear power, too. But McCain hasn't. Now consider this about Hillary Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080403/cm_usatoday/clintonfoundationdonorsremainshroudedinsecrecy;_ylt=At.nN09ongkYwie.KK_dsy2s0NUE

"The Saudi royal family gave $10 million, according to The Washington Post, and numerous foreign governments have given $1 million. The largest contributors appear to include Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helü, Canadian mining entrepreneur Frank Giustra and the Lundin Group, a Canadian oil and gas company. Each has publicly pledged $100 million for development projects."

If your campaign is being supported by people who are rich in oil and especially natural gas, then what incentive do you have to support the one thing that can compete against these sources of energy?

Mark my words (again): an Obama or Hillary Presidency will result in the appointment of an anti-nuke as DOE secretary, and more NRC Commissioners like Jackzo (Democrat Harry Reid's hand-picked, anti-Yucca Mtn selection).

If you want a nuclear power resurgence, then you must vote AGAINST the Democrats. It's that simple.

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…