Skip to main content

McCain, Obama on Energy in Michigan: Day 2

McCain Obama on Energy in MichiganIn advance of Senator John McCain's tour of the Fermi 2 nuclear plant this afternoon, the Obama campaign's press office has just released this statement
Barack Obama supports safe and secure nuclear energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, Obama thinks key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R - IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available
.

Comments

KevinM said…
Sure. As soon as its safe, and we resolve the disposal issue.

But not Yuca mountain, lets build somethying new. Why? Nothing specific, just doesn't seem safe.

How long did it take to build Yuca mountain? Started more than a decade ago. How long will it take to build somewhere else?

Sounds to me like: "I support noise makers at birthday parties as long as nobody makes any noise."

Phony.
KevinM said…
Sorry to post twice in a row, but I wanted to add color by showing what an alternative statement might look like. Google this quote from McCain:

McCain said there was “no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth.”

Which of these men is speaking definitively and without fear of the polls?
KB said…
No need to apologize, kevinm. Comment away!
Anonymous said…
"Which of these men is speaking definitively and without fear of the polls?"

Neither. Bisconti Research and NEI tell us most Americans want new nuclear plants, right? So he's in line with the polls.

McCain as maverick is one of the biggest myths in Washington.
Anonymous said…
Obama's campaign says he does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a repository for U.S. defense high level wastes and and civilian wastes. Instead, Obama "will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis."

Sure. Obama is a lawyer, and his "belief" about Yucca Mountain clearly does not come from his own personal expertise.

So Obama is apparently willing to cut off the independent scientific review of Yucca Mountain by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, probably because he "believes" that the NRC's likely positive conclusion on Yucca Mountain would not correspond with his negative "belief" about the Yucca Mountain's safety.

So an Obama administration will use the best science to inform its nuclear energy policy decisions. Sure.
Anonymous said…
"Obama is apparently willing to cut off the independent scientific review of Yucca Mountain by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission"

where has he said this? source?

"Obama is a lawyer, and his "belief" about Yucca Mountain clearly does not come from his own personal expertise."

what's McCain's technical background in nuclear power?
Anonymous said…
Anyone here believe that Obama will let Yucca Mountain proceed on his watch, raise your hand?

Anyone here believe that a relatively inexperienced politician lawyer will do what is right instead of what furthers their political career?

McCain has at least had much more life experiences in the military (big user of nuclear power) and the Senate (boss of the NRC) with respect to nuclear power and politics than Obama. Wisdom comes with age and exposure only.
Matthew66 said…
I think the whole waste depository issue was mishandled from the get go. The Department of Energy (or Congress) should have asked for communities to volunteer to host the facility. With the appropriate economic incentives, I am sure there would have been plenty of takers. The criteria would have required the agreement of local and state governments, and hopefully the support of the state congressional delegation. Of course, it would probably have resulted in New Mexico getting the facility and a couple of truckloads of cash.

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…