Skip to main content

Obama Surrogates on Nuclear Power

Obama surrogates Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), and Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) discussed the RNC's "Balance" ad with reporters in a just-completed conference call. Below is a transcription of the final question asked during the Q&A.
Hi, it's Susan Demas, again, from MIRS newsletter. The ad says that Senator Obama is against nuclear power and I was wondering what his position is on nuclear and I was also wondering if an increase in nuclear power could help your states with providing jobs.

This is Josh Earnest with the [Obama] campaign. I can take the first part of that. As you point out, that is a very misleading attack against Senator Obama's proposals. What he has said is that he wants to work to find a safe way to store the waste that is generated by nuclear energy production. And once we can do that, he would be supportive of considering expanding nuclear options to increase our energy capacity in this country.

I'll leave it to somebody else if they want to talk about the impact on local economies.
Granholm: His [Obama's] position papers online state very clearly that it's unlikely we're going to meet these climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. So he does not oppose nuclear energy. What he wants to do is, what's [been] suggested, is find a way to store it and make it secure.


Anonymous said…
well Obama cannot realize, that the solution to nuclear waste - IFR like breeders or MSR or whatever - is well known and technologically proven solution.

I hope he'll realize that the day after electrions, though.

Hope for America! :-)
Anonymous said…
Obama knows the technology exists to take care of the waste; but, he wants a new magical solution that doesn't involve bad publicity. Or, he is waiting till he is elected to denounce nuclear energy entirely.

He is a great speaker, and even better at playing all sides.
Kevin said…
"supportive of considering"

Anonymous said…
I strongly disagree with your charitable interpretation of Obama's position. He's clearly pandering to part of his democratic base by his de-facto opposition to nuclear power. The fact that he uses the waste-disposal back door allows him to be on both sides of the issue. Just look at California, which has a de-facto ban on nuclear power via a law requiring a waste-disposal solution.
Anonymous said…
"IFR like breeders or MSR or whatever - is well known and technologically proven solution."

is that why no one anywhere in the world has ever built one of these reactors beyond small, government-funded demonstration facilities?

What are the capital costs like for IFR and molten salt, anyway? And how does the cost of treating HLW this way compare with once-through?
Anonymous said…
At the end of the day you have one candidate who is strongly pro-nuclear. And the other candidate is against more nuclear at this time. But is trying to make excuses and spin it, because being against nuclear is an unpopular position in these times.

Combine this with issues like no drilling and more taxes during tough economic times and it looks like the Republicans will be staying in power to me.
Anonymous said…
to Anon, July 8, 2008 11:18 AM> The reason is cheap and plentiful uranium on one side, and regulation tailored for current plans on the other. And of course cheap coal which is allowed to pollute the atmosphere with no penalties, actually with a explicit EPA exemption on its wastes. I suggest reading the "Economics" section of the IFR here:

Anonymous said…
Vote for Obama and you're voting against nuclear energy. Vote against Obama and you're voting for nuclear energy.

Sadly, I can't think of many reasons to vote for McCain. Nuclear energy is one of them, obviously. And there are a few others where Obama's positions are clearly against life.

I hate voting for the lesser of two evils: Obama - proletariot dictatorship or McCain - Corporate Empire. But that's what I shall do - vote against Obama.
Anonymous said…
What's the deal? Obama's postion paper clearly says he looks to [favors] nuclear energy as one option for the country that should be developed. It is a Rovism to say otherwise. When the debates come, Obama will point to his long-time position, but the Republicans will accuse him of flip flopping aginst what THEY said he said. [!]

In addition, he wants us to get more creative with the waste it produces, rather than trucking it around the country - a roulette sort of move if ever there was one.

I will vote for the guy with the open mind who also thinks these things through. Obama '08
Anonymous said…
I too, unfortunately, will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. While I find the charasmatic Mr. Obama entertaining to watch and listen to, his position on critical issues, specifically Nuclear, will force me to vote Republican once again. And while I harbor no ill will for Mr. Obama, Nuclear is a key and crucial component to the failing economy and energy crisis, and I want someone in the drivers seat that will use the resources and knowledge we have at hand to make a difference today, not tomorrow.
Anonymous said…
I am so very close to voting for Obama, but watching him try and play both sides of the nuclear power issue instead of taking a bold pro-nuclear stance is going to lose him my vote. Bad enough he is against the manned space program, but this too? Clearly, this man does not have a vision of a future where America leads the world in science and technology, in space and in power. If he cannot fund our space program, and is wishy-washy about nuclear, this is obviously not the sort of man who will be funding projects in the future like fusion research. Sorry Obama, "Hope" is not as important as "VISION". Hate to vote you down, it goes.

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…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

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.


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…