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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...