Skip to main content

Sarah Palin on Nuclear Energy

By

vlcsnap-1785193 It's in the mix. From her speech last night:

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

And second only to pipeline-laying - and that makes sense given Palin's background. We'll take it.

Picture of Palin. Let's see what McCain says tonight. (Slight Correction: we gave Ms. Palin back her "h" in the title.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sarah Palin fought the corruption of the big oil companies. Read her entire speech instead of quoting out of context.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_text
September 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
David Bradish said…
Read her entire speech instead of quoting out of context.

I did and Mark didn't quote her out of context. Fighting big oil companies is different then laying pipelines. Not only that, Palin's statement on pipelines is in a completely different section then her statement on fighting lobbyists and big oil companies. I think you should take another read of her speech.
September 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said…
Oil and natural gas are different from coal. Oil and natural gas are where we get our primary source of fossil hydrogen. Hydrogen is vital to our economy. It converts solid carbon into liquid and gaseous forms. Hydrogen is fundamental in the transformation of carbon into plastics and petrochemicals.

We have at least 2 decades before nuclear and other non-fossil sources could credibly provide a significant fraction of the fossil hydrogen we currently consume and that we will continue to need. In the mean time, it is vastly better that we use fossil hydrogen from sources such as off-shore drilling, than to enable the continued expansion of fossil coal use.
September 5, 2008 at 12:34 AM
GRLCowan said…
"Once-through U235 nuclear reactors can power our society for not more than 60 years.", says Ray Lightning, incorrectly. Driven by a uranium price that briefly exceeded $3 per barrel-of-oil-equivalent, prospectors have been finding 235-U at a rate, in oil-equivalent terms, of 100 million barrels per day.



--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
September 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said…
It is time we take a very good look at our country and the roll we play in today's world. America must wake up and stop playing ridiculous political games. Today we are not able to carry the world, this also applies to our bureaucracy and the hundreds of rich and ignorant pan-handlers our system feeds every day. Our country was founded by hard working people, who had one thing in common, the desire of freedom and the opportunity to be some- body. Let us unite and work together, stop the crying, let us find common ground and reach our dreams and goals, it's time we honor all those who gave their lives so we may live free. I have seen the world and it's not a beautiful sight, today people live with fear wishing they had freedom and the opportunity to be some-body. Wake up America, we need to be the beacon in a world of darkness.
September 6, 2008 at 5:13 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more