Skip to main content

Obama Surrogates on Nuclear Power

By
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.
[Snip]
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.
Labels:

Comments

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! :-)
-t7-
July 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM
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.
July 7, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Anonymous said…
"supportive of considering"

OK
July 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM
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.
July 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
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?
July 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
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.
July 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
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:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

-t7-
July 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
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.
July 9, 2008 at 6:18 AM
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
July 23, 2008 at 12:52 PM
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.
July 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM
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, but...so it goes.
August 6, 2008 at 12:03 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

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

By
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...
7 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