Skip to main content

Nuclear Engineers on John Edwards and Yucca Mountain

By Eric McErlain
Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides and her husband watched John Edwards on Meet The Press on Sunday, and they weren't happy with what he had to say about nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain:
My 30 year old Hispanic husband and I watched Tim Russert this past Sunday and were incredibly disappointed with the uneducated statement John Edwards made concerning Yucca Mountain. We are both nuclear engineers who are proud to work as environmentalist on a daily basis to supply the needed electricity for our country.

I will gladly vote for a candidate who supports a national call for conservation, but I cannot support a candidate who does not understand the fundamental basis nuclear power supplies for our energy security. I became a nuclear engineer because I believe the millennia generation will need to do more than just debate the energy question, but constantly work to solve it. My husband and I help create an emissions free base load energy supply for millions of US citizens. Nuclear Power is not dependent on the Middle East for oil and I personally ensure that our plant is a good environmental steward by operating within environmental guidelines.

Simply stating that nuclear waste should stay near its home location is a policy that continues a broken promise by the federal government. John Edwards should consider a policy that includes updating US technology to reprocess used nuclear fuel and continuing the necessary research and construction of a permanent fuel repository.
For more, visit the African-American Environmentalist Association.

UPDATE: More thoughts from DCS Security.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I didn't see Meet the Press with John Edwards, but I am not surprised to hear of Mr. Edwards comments. Why? He's a former trial lawyer; probably hasn't taken a science class since high school biology. He made millions suing corporations, hospitals, etc. He has never done any productive "work" in today's society (including his stint in congress). So to hear that he has made inane comments regarding Yucca Mountain, the science supporting the project, etc. does not surprise me the least. Having been a failed VP candidate, perhaps he should devote his life towards something more productive than another failed attempt at public office.
February 6, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Edwards should be more supportive of nuclear energy if for no other reason that he lives in the South where there is quite a bit of nuclear capacity, some of which helps power that 28,200 sq. ft. mansion he just moved into. From the looks of the land around it, he had to clear-cut quite a few trees as well to make room to build it on his 102 acres of land. Well, Edwards likes to talk their being "two Americas". I wonder which one someone who has a 28,200 sq. ft. mansion would belong to? Heck, I've only got 1500 sq. ft. in a tract development and I'm happy to have some of my electricity come from nuclear.
February 8, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said…
I don't think the points made in the earlier posts concerning the background and career of Mr. Edwards or his own lifestyle vs. the positions he advocates as public policy are irrelevant. He has declared himself a candidate for the highest elective office in the land. As such, almost everything about him is subject to public scrutiny. The people have a right to know where a candidate stands, what his/her beliefs are, how well they practice what they preach. All of these relate in some manner to issues of character, morals, integrity, honesty, and dependability. Most of us believe these to be important for one who seeks elective office.
February 13, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Anonymous said…
I came across this blog while searching for a presidential candidate that would take a stand of protecting America from the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). I didn’t have an opportunity to listen to John Edwards, and don’t know what he said. Can any of you let me know whether or not there is a transcript of his speech?

http://www.frankmckinnon.com
September 6, 2007 at 6:00 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