Skip to main content

Sarah Palin on Nuclear Energy

By

vlcsnap-1785193 It's in the mix. From her speech last night:

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

And second only to pipeline-laying - and that makes sense given Palin's background. We'll take it.

Picture of Palin. Let's see what McCain says tonight. (Slight Correction: we gave Ms. Palin back her "h" in the title.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sarah Palin fought the corruption of the big oil companies. Read her entire speech instead of quoting out of context.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_text
September 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM
David Bradish said…
Read her entire speech instead of quoting out of context.

I did and Mark didn't quote her out of context. Fighting big oil companies is different then laying pipelines. Not only that, Palin's statement on pipelines is in a completely different section then her statement on fighting lobbyists and big oil companies. I think you should take another read of her speech.
September 4, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said…
Oil and natural gas are different from coal. Oil and natural gas are where we get our primary source of fossil hydrogen. Hydrogen is vital to our economy. It converts solid carbon into liquid and gaseous forms. Hydrogen is fundamental in the transformation of carbon into plastics and petrochemicals.

We have at least 2 decades before nuclear and other non-fossil sources could credibly provide a significant fraction of the fossil hydrogen we currently consume and that we will continue to need. In the mean time, it is vastly better that we use fossil hydrogen from sources such as off-shore drilling, than to enable the continued expansion of fossil coal use.
September 5, 2008 at 12:34 AM
GRLCowan said…
"Once-through U235 nuclear reactors can power our society for not more than 60 years.", says Ray Lightning, incorrectly. Driven by a uranium price that briefly exceeded $3 per barrel-of-oil-equivalent, prospectors have been finding 235-U at a rate, in oil-equivalent terms, of 100 million barrels per day.



--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
September 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous said…
It is time we take a very good look at our country and the roll we play in today's world. America must wake up and stop playing ridiculous political games. Today we are not able to carry the world, this also applies to our bureaucracy and the hundreds of rich and ignorant pan-handlers our system feeds every day. Our country was founded by hard working people, who had one thing in common, the desire of freedom and the opportunity to be some- body. Let us unite and work together, stop the crying, let us find common ground and reach our dreams and goals, it's time we honor all those who gave their lives so we may live free. I have seen the world and it's not a beautiful sight, today people live with fear wishing they had freedom and the opportunity to be some-body. Wake up America, we need to be the beacon in a world of darkness.
September 6, 2008 at 5:13 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more