Skip to main content

Mike Huckabee on Energy and the Environment

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is the latest Presidential candidate to talk to Grist about his positions on energy and the environment. Here's his answer on nuclear energy:
Q. Do you think we need to expand the role of nuclear power in the U.S.?

A. Absolutely. France is almost completely nuclear, and it's not like they're a nation given to risky behaviors. There's been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded. I mean, we've been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mike Huckabee is a Republican. I expect their Presidential candidates to openly support nuclear energy. How many in the Democrat field provide such support? John Edwards? What about Hillary? She's made noises, but has come out openly against IPEC. What about Obama? He's come out openly against Davis Besse.

Now Dominici is retiring from the Senate next year and nuke power loses a strong voice on the Energy sub-committee.

Mark my words: elect a Democrat for President in 2008, and the whole tone of the NRC will change.

And you ALL know that to be true.

I don't believe in catering to the whims and fancies of such people when they make noises that sound pro-nuke, but do things that are anti-nuke.

As the Romans always said: Facta, Non Verba!
robert merkel said…
Anonymous:

1) The Democrats aren't going away, and in fact may well hold the White House and both houses of Congress in 2009 for reasons that have little to do with nuclear energy.

2) The nuclear industry/community's ability to change this outcome is limited to the margins.

3) Republicans as a group have, as you've noted, consistently supported nuclear energy, though there are undoubtedly exceptions. Democrats are divided on the issue, with a few strong supporters, a fair number of implacably opposed, and others somewhere in between.

4) I suspect in most of the congressional districts where nuclear energy is an issue, the major party candidates take the same view on it.

Given all of the above, it would seem to me that people who care about supporting nuclear energy - whether as professionals or as other interested parties - would be putting much of their general effort into persuading moderate Democrats.
Anonymous said…
Robert,

While I care a great deal about the success of commercial nuclear power, I shall never vote Democrat, nor shall I ingratiate myself with them in the faint hope that they may change their foolish ways and support nuclear power. Truthfully, while I find their anti-nuclear position to be childish and silly, my reasons for opposing the Democrat Party have little to do with nuclear power. But nevertheless, mark my words: elect a Democrat President and the whole pro-nuclear, "let's build new plants climate" will change - and for the worse. Oh, the Democrats might not go away right now, but when they finish, United States power will certainly be gone.
Anonymous said…
United States power is waning and will continue to diminish for a while now thanks mainly to the lack of leadership of W. and his revolving door cabinet of losers.
As a scientist, I can tell you there is nothing foolish about the opposition to nuclear power, the main reason for doing so being the lack of a safe way to dispose of or utilize the waste by-products. It is an unnecessarily complex way to boil water and still creates problems heating the nearby waterways and the environment generally. O'Bama is the only Dem front runner I've heard support it "

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 …