Skip to main content

Steve Forbes on the Obama Administration

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.)

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.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …