Skip to main content

The Candidates in Their Own Words

In the interest of fairness, we looked for a few actual quotes from the remaining Presidential candidates on nuclear energy. All of these quotes have appeared on NEI Nuclear Notes before, but it might be useful to gather them together.

First, Hilary Clinton at a campaign stop in South Carolina in October of last year (a little cleaned up from the transcript):

I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution. I think we've got to do a better job at figuring out how we're going to deal with the waste. You know, because in a post 9/11 world we've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants.

I don't have any preconceived opposition. I want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can, because obviously it's a tremendous source of energy. We get about twenty percent of our energy from nuclear power in our country. A lot of people don't realize that. And other countries, like France, get much much more.

So we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air. But we have to make sure it's done as safely as possible.

Second, Barack Obama from the Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College last September:

I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can't, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We're going to have to look at all the various options.

Third, John McCain, in an Interview with The Detroit News’ editorial board in January of this year:

I believe we can and are developing technologies that can have a dramatic effect on greenhouse gas emissions. I believe we have to go back to nuclear power. Why can’t we look at what the French have done? About 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power. And they are the closest to meeting the Kyoto goals that they set for themselves.

Odd to see candidates on both sides of the partisan divide bowing to the French - aren't they wrong about everything? - but otherwise, all three candidates are saying publicly that nuclear energy cannot be ignored. Candidates frequently finesse their statements based on their audiences, as we saw when the Democrats clamored over each other to be the first to torpedo Yucca Mountain at the Nevada debate, but these are clear, public statements of support.

Ironically, it is Al Gore, surely no friend of nuclear energy, who has cornered Democrats into acknowledging that America cannot address climate change without nuclear. Further, despite a continuing debate in popular culture, no one in government goes very far out of their way to dispute climate change or the role of nuclear in mitigating carbon emission.

Nuclear energy has walked through the door that Al Gore kicked down, and no Democrat seems to have a way to get that door back on its hinges. In many cases, they even like the breeze that comes through.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And both Hillary and Obama have issued statement against nuclear power, too. But McCain hasn't. Now consider this about Hillary Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080403/cm_usatoday/clintonfoundationdonorsremainshroudedinsecrecy;_ylt=At.nN09ongkYwie.KK_dsy2s0NUE

"The Saudi royal family gave $10 million, according to The Washington Post, and numerous foreign governments have given $1 million. The largest contributors appear to include Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helü, Canadian mining entrepreneur Frank Giustra and the Lundin Group, a Canadian oil and gas company. Each has publicly pledged $100 million for development projects."

If your campaign is being supported by people who are rich in oil and especially natural gas, then what incentive do you have to support the one thing that can compete against these sources of energy?

Mark my words (again): an Obama or Hillary Presidency will result in the appointment of an anti-nuke as DOE secretary, and more NRC Commissioners like Jackzo (Democrat Harry Reid's hand-picked, anti-Yucca Mtn selection).

If you want a nuclear power resurgence, then you must vote AGAINST the Democrats. It's that simple.

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 …