Skip to main content

Steve Forbes on the Obama Administration

By
Obama Administration Steve ForbesForbes magazine editor-in chief and publisher, Steve Forbes, a former presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, looks at the future Obama administration in this week's issue. The pull quote:
Though an Obama Administration won’t try to lift the ban on drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the next President will allow the removal of more and more barriers to offshore drilling. Even more amazing will be his support of new nuclear power plant construction. Obama will let congressional Democrats and Republicans take the legislative lead, but he will quietly make it clear that he’ll sign virtually any pro-nuclear legislation they can pass—while publicly pretending to be mighty reluctant to do so.
(H/T to P.P.)
Labels:

Comments

dave said…
I voted for Obama; I'm a lifelong Dem, I supported him since the primaries, and I agree with him about 99% of his policies; the only one I have a problem with is his lukewarm support of nuclear energy...which is the only real option to tackle the global meltdown of global warming in our lifetimes, as well as to get rid of dependency on foreign oil.

I do hope that Forbes is right about Obama's position on nuclear issues. I am also cautiously optimistic in that area. Obama's got a first class brain, and if he's given enough information to judge an issue like nuclear power on the merits, he will--hopefully.

He isn't a Boomer who grew up during the years of atomic testing and missile crises and hopelessly conflates nuclear weapons with nuclear power, a major factor that made some of the Boomers rather anti-nuclear. So I think he's reachable for the purpose of turning his skeptical support into warm support for nuclear...if you give him the evidence and the facts to make such a choice.

On another note, my generation, we'll be on Obama's staff...you should reach out to us...because you'll find that though we're progressive and liberal, we're also willing to try new things, including those things rejected by our parents...like nuclear power, provided somebody makes a case to us. For example, engaging progressive bloggers and younger opinion leaders on nuclear issues might pay quite good dividends--especially about using nuclear power as an answer to climate change, and the like.
November 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM
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