Skip to main content

McCain, Obama on Energy in Michigan: Day 2

By
McCain Obama on Energy in MichiganIn advance of Senator John McCain's tour of the Fermi 2 nuclear plant this afternoon, the Obama campaign's press office has just released this statement
Barack Obama supports safe and secure nuclear energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, Obama thinks key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R - IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available
.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sure. As soon as its safe, and we resolve the disposal issue.

But not Yuca mountain, lets build somethying new. Why? Nothing specific, just doesn't seem safe.

How long did it take to build Yuca mountain? Started more than a decade ago. How long will it take to build somewhere else?

Sounds to me like: "I support noise makers at birthday parties as long as nobody makes any noise."

Phony.
August 5, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said…
Sorry to post twice in a row, but I wanted to add color by showing what an alternative statement might look like. Google this quote from McCain:

McCain said there was “no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth.”

Which of these men is speaking definitively and without fear of the polls?
August 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM
KB said…
No need to apologize, kevinm. Comment away!
August 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said…
"Which of these men is speaking definitively and without fear of the polls?"

Neither. Bisconti Research and NEI tell us most Americans want new nuclear plants, right? So he's in line with the polls.

McCain as maverick is one of the biggest myths in Washington.
August 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Obama's campaign says he does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a repository for U.S. defense high level wastes and and civilian wastes. Instead, Obama "will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis."

Sure. Obama is a lawyer, and his "belief" about Yucca Mountain clearly does not come from his own personal expertise.

So Obama is apparently willing to cut off the independent scientific review of Yucca Mountain by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, probably because he "believes" that the NRC's likely positive conclusion on Yucca Mountain would not correspond with his negative "belief" about the Yucca Mountain's safety.

So an Obama administration will use the best science to inform its nuclear energy policy decisions. Sure.
August 6, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Anonymous said…
"Obama is apparently willing to cut off the independent scientific review of Yucca Mountain by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission"

where has he said this? source?

"Obama is a lawyer, and his "belief" about Yucca Mountain clearly does not come from his own personal expertise."

what's McCain's technical background in nuclear power?
August 6, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said…
Anyone here believe that Obama will let Yucca Mountain proceed on his watch, raise your hand?

Anyone here believe that a relatively inexperienced politician lawyer will do what is right instead of what furthers their political career?

McCain has at least had much more life experiences in the military (big user of nuclear power) and the Senate (boss of the NRC) with respect to nuclear power and politics than Obama. Wisdom comes with age and exposure only.
August 6, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Matthew66 said…
I think the whole waste depository issue was mishandled from the get go. The Department of Energy (or Congress) should have asked for communities to volunteer to host the facility. With the appropriate economic incentives, I am sure there would have been plenty of takers. The criteria would have required the agreement of local and state governments, and hopefully the support of the state congressional delegation. Of course, it would probably have resulted in New Mexico getting the facility and a couple of truckloads of cash.
August 6, 2008 at 2:40 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