Skip to main content

Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

In an interview on "Meet the Press," Sen. Barack Obama (D) was asked by host Tim Russert to discuss his position on Nuclear Energy.
Russert: In terms of climate change, global warming, you've talked about wind and solar and biofuels. What about nuclear? All—in all realistic assessment, don't we need more nuclear power in order to wean ourselves off of those same fuels that are contaminating the world?

Obama: I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has—it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns. So it has not been an effective option. That doesn't mean that it can't be an effective option, but we're going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be—we've, we've got to look at every possible option.

Comments

10ksnooker said…
I wonder why there are cost overruns? Could it be the ... Nah couldn't be, could it?

Wins prize for most nonsensical answer yet.
Joffan said…
I think 10ksnooker is projecting a pre-existing dislike of Obama onto this answer. Don't lock this debate into party politics. It's too important.

Actually it's a very good answer for nuclear power, given the constituency that Obama is currently courting. If he is elected, he can "discover" the already-running design licensing process (approving standard designs, rather than designing each plant). He can "discover" that nuclear power has a safety record second to none. And he can "discover" that Yucca Mountain is a reasonable solution to waster, especially if it has its license at that point. All of which could allow him to push forward with nuclear power expansion.
Anonymous said…
Standard stock answer, nothing exiting, but at least Obama picks the correct part of the prevailing common wisdom.

Yes, nuclear in the US has had a nasty cost control problem from the 70s to the 90s and the long term destiny of spent fuel is the other big issue, still wide open and in need for some serious decision making.

That Obama can correctly identify those issues and doesn't descent in incoherents about radioactive leaks means we're in a much better shape than with any past presidential candidate in the last 25 years, Republican or Democrat. Admittedly, the bar is pretty darn low...

The fact that Excelon Corp. is one of his biggest corporate donors may have something to do with it :>
Anonymous said…
But Joffan, Obama is Democrat and likely won't discover any of those things. McCain is openly pro-nuclear power. McCain is a sure bet. Obama is not. Nor is Hillary. The past track record of Dems at the presidential level is anti-nuclear. Repubs haven't been much better, but they have been better. And Bush - God bless his heart - started GNEP and is opnely and adamantly pro-nuclear. Personally, I wouldn't trust a Dem with a baby's life, given Roe v Wade.
Joffan said…
Call me an optimist, but I see this answer as a positioning for Obama to "discover" exactly the things I described. And the reason I quote "discover" is because I think Obama already knows these facts but does not wish to jar the anti-nuclear faction within the Democrat base just yet.

I think this is the wrong place for a general political discussion.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous, republicans are for nuclear energy? Perhaps in their speeches. What happened during the all last GOP presidencies? Nuclear power was kept frozen. To build the 1-st power plant in the US took 2.5 years including changing the fuel from metal to oxide. The build the 441-st nuclear power plant - after Regan and two Bushes - it takes 10 years. What a shame!

I liked McCain, that guy whose conscious opposed Bush's tax cut, who argued against torture as a wrong policy on ethical and factual grounds - torture produces bad intelligence. I don't want to see 3rd Bush term.


Recent nuclear revival is caused by real needs for more power in the times when fossil fuel prices soar. No administration can stop that. I am certainly suspicious of Clinton's intentions, but even she'll have to realize that even with grand solar plan we'd need more nuclear. Much more indeed.

Therefore I think the best candidate is Obama, he is of the least antinuclear among democrats, and I agree with Joffan that 'change is going to come' ;-)

-t- (not the other anonymouses)
Anonymous said…
If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.

Let's stick to nuclear power or this board will become a mess...
Gunter said…
There's this Texas saying about taking such middle of the positions,

"The thing about being in the middle of the road is that you wind up getting hit from both sides."

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…