Skip to main content

Obama, McCain on Nuclear Energy: The TV Ads


As an admitted media-obsessed political junkie, I enjoy watching any political ad; if there were campaign ads out there by candidates running for dog catcher, I'd probably watch 'em. With advertising budgets a bit bigger and the stakes a whole lot larger, the presidential campaign ads are, for me, must-see viewing.

The first RNC TV spot to be released, "Balance," has really caught my eye. Perhaps it was just pure nostalgia - that 1970's Social Studies class filmstrip aesthetic really took me back. (Here's a helpful Wiki link to "Filmstrip" for those under the age of 30.) More likely it was the ad's claim that Obama has said "No to Nuclear Power." The creators cite a Newton, Iowa Town Hall event from Dec. 31, 2007 as the source for quotation.

A couple of quibbles: the event happened on Dec. 30th, not the 31st. More significantly, the full transcript shows Obama supporting nuclear energy at the end of his response to the questioner.
I have not ruled out nuclear as part of that package [alternative energies and creating clean technologies]...
At a more recent event, a June 20th, 2008 meeting with U.S. governors, Obama had this to say about the role of nuclear energy in America's future
I've said this before, I don't think nuclear power is a panacea but I also think that given that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, for us to invest some R&D into seeing whether we could store nuclear waste safely or reuse it...I mean these are all areas where the market interacting with a clear set of rules by the federal government and billions of dollars devoted to research and development can, I think, trigger the kind of economic growth we haven't seen in this country in a long time.
Obama's support for the nuclear industry has not been as full-throated as McCain's - he's not called for the building of 45 new reactors by 2030 - but to claim he's said "No to Nuclear" is inaccurate, at best.

Comments

Durden said…
"I have not ruled out nuclear as part of that package"

I'm not sure that I'd exactly call this statement supportive.
KB said…
@ durden.
Sure, one can argue the degree or depth of support that this quote shows...but a "no" to nuclear it is most certainly not.
Anonymous said…
Going full out nuclear is (very much unfortunately) a political suicide for any politician in the Democratic party. Obama is a politician, a Democrat and not suicidal. I guess this is the maximum he can say, still not alienating some hardcore base Edwards-leaning folks ...

-t7-
Anonymous said…
This interview that Obama did with the Keene Sentinel in New Hampshire contains his most extensive comments on nuclear energy that I've come across.
Durden said…
I think I saw that filmstrip, KB. It was about Kon Tiki, right? :)

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 …