In a speech yesterday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton laid out her energy policy for her presidential campaign. Here's the passage on nuclear energy (PDF):
UPDATE: Some reactions here and here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More here.
Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.For other Clinton items from our archives, click here.
UPDATE: Some reactions here and here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More here.
Comments
It's interesting to see that her plan for nuclear energy so closely resembles her husband's: that is, it's a plan to do nothing. At least the Clintons are a consistent pair.
So much for being "agnostic."
If Clinton gets in office, then there will be NO new nukes, and it's unlikely that IPEC or VY will conitune to operate.
I've told you this before: don't ingratiate yourselves before these people. Simply defeat them in 2008.
With respect, you're being unrealistic. A strategy for the nuclear industry that relies on keeping Democrats out of office forever won't work any better any more than a plan to introduce (to pick an example of an issue that the American left would dearly love to see happen) single-payer healthcare that relies on keeping Republicans out of office forever.
From what I can tell, at this point in time Senator Clinton is more likely than any other person to be the next President of the United States. Furthermore, there's not much you, or anyone that reads this blog can do about it; the number of people motivated to vote, donate, or or mobilise on nuclear energy, is tiny.
As Sovietologist points out, Hillary's left herself all manner of wiggle room on nuclear power. That's a world away from, say, John Edwards. And it's simply not true that left-of-center governments won't ever support nuclear; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have fought their party's base tooth and nail to get new nuclear power on the agenda in Britain.
Anyway there's a choice; work with Democrats as best you can (who aren't monolithic on the issue), or don't work with them and get frozen out of the debate entirely.
What did the Clintons do for (to?) nuclear power in the '90s? How about canceling the IFR at Idaho? Their bag-man Bill Richardson killed the HFBR at Brookhaven Lab. Clinton's first speech to Congress noted that the government wasn't going to be doing some things anymore, "like nuclear power development". Yep, they sure did a lot.
I respect your opinion, but I'll never vote Democrat anyways, nor will I ingratiate myself with liberals. It is also unlikely I'll vote Republican in the upcoming election, especially if Rudy wins the Republican primaries. There are moral issues that trump nuclear power, although I still won't vote for any candidate who is anti-nuke. I probably will vote Constitution Party - they are closest to how I feel politically. Sadly, their candidate won't get elected, but it's my vote and it won't go to either Rudy or Hillary, even though Rudy is pro-nuclear. As I said, there other other issues (moral in nature) that require this course of action.