NEI Nuclear Notes

Sen. John McCain This might qualify as a discussable point , from a Time Magazine discussion with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.): Q. You used to be very engaged on the issue of climate change? I’m still interested in it. And I think there are a lot of things that we can do like this transition that we’re making to natural gas thanks to our resources and I still believe in nuclear power as one of the big parts of the answers, and that’s almost impossible to get. And I think we need to address greenhouse gas emissions. But I try to get involved in issues were I see a legislative result… But there’s going to be no movement in the Congress of the United States certainly this year and probably next year. So I just leave the issue alone because I don’t see a way through it, and there are certain fundamentals, for example nuke power, that people on the left will never agree with me on. So why should I waste my time when I know the people on the left are going to reject nuclear power? I don’...

A group of 17 Senators are puzzled : Over $7.7 billion has been spent researching Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site and neither the NAS, the NWTRB, nor any of our National Labs involved in conducting studies and evaluating data have concluded that there is any evidence to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository. That’s certainly true. This comes from a letter written by the Senators (all Republican) to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. And they’re doing what a opposing minority should be doing – making the administration explain itself. As recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including you, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Again, true, though the “letter” was really more of a white paper. So, what would they like to have happen? Given this history, President Obama's memoranda that science will guide public policy and his co...

We’ve been a little busy at the NEI Central portion of our, shall we call it, job, but we still want to share some interesting stories with you: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants to quit pussyfooting around and just pull the plug on the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository: McCain said he disagreed with the administration's choice to rule out Yucca Mountain, but since nuclear power is "vital" for U.S. energy needs, the nation must consider other options. McCain said his amendments would shutter Yucca Mountain and repay fees paid by electricity customers for building a repository. He said other nuclear amendments would address fuel reprocessing. Grandstanding? Symbolic gesture? In any event, we think it’s pretty effective - and it’s had an impact: Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the committee will designate some time during the markup to consider nuclear energy and waste. The panel is expected to have the next markup in a series of four or more the week...

Here is a transcript of the testimony from yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. The intent of the hearing was to discuss energy R&D, and mostly concerned that issue, but with DOE Secretary Steven Chu present, several of the Senators let their displeasure known about the scaling back of Yucca Mountain. This is the exchange between John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chu. We pick up after Sen. McCain established that solar energy will not exceed providing 15% or so of electricity production by 2015. McCain: That means that clean coal and nuclear power are far more important than maybe some people appreciate today. Chu: I agree with that in the short term. McCain: Is it true that a Department of Energy spokeswoman told Bloomburg  [News] that President Obama and you, quote, have been emphatic that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period. Chu: That’s true. McCain: That’s a true statement. So now we’re going to ha...

Or was it the 564th? Well, it was the last one anyway. Here are the nuclear quotes and we should note, this is three-for-three in which there were nuclear shout outs. Granted, all eyes are on the economy and associated pocket book issues, so we expected much less about energy policy this time out. First, McCain: Energy -- well, first -- second of all, energy independence. We have to have nuclear power. We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. It's wind, tide, solar, natural gas, nuclear, off-shore drilling, which Senator Obama has opposed. We've heard this one before, although it oddly came after the candidates were asked what programs they'd cut. McCain had several suggestions: he really doesn't like ethanol: I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies. Answering how to eliminate dependence on foreign oil: ...

And by an impressively wide margin, too. A new poll from Bisconti Research for NEI interviewed 1000 voters to determine the support for nuclear energy depending on which candidate they were leaning towards - we've always liked the idea, much used by pollsters, of the "leaning" voter. You get an image of a grove of folks, swaying as the political winds move them. Before going through the results, we would have anticipated that John McCain voters would prefer nuclear energy much more than Barack Obama voters; Obama's support has been positive if a bit on the tepid side and we expected his candidacy would attract more environmental no-nuke diehards. But see for yourselves. “Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?” Favor (which combines strongly and somewhat favors): Obama: 72% McCain: 86% That's about what we expect from...

Here's the opening paragraph of Larry Rohter's story : Contrary to what Democrats may think, there is more to John McCain’s energy program than “drill, baby, drill.” And contrary to what Mr. McCain has been saying on the campaign trail, where he proposes the construction of 45 nuclear plants by 2030, Barack Obama does not “oppose the use of nuclear power.” This pretty well lines up with what we've said as this campaign rolls along (always pleasing), and the story gets Obama's campaign to open up a bit more on what seems to us tepid support: Elgie Holstein, an adviser to Mr. Obama on energy issues, accused the McCain campaign of misrepresenting Mr. Obama’s position on nuclear power. “Some specific proposals that Senator McCain has made are troubling,” Mr. Holstein said, because of the problems of storage and reprocessing, and the issue of non-proliferation of nuclear fuel. Of course, Obama and Holstein could be more forthcoming on how they want to...

First, McCain: You're going to be examining our proposals tonight and in the future, and energy independence is a way to do that, is one of them. And drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements of that. And I've been supporting those and I know how to fix this economy, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $700 billion a year overseas. McCain probably needs to stop staying he "knows" how to do something, because it can make people wonder why anyone would think otherwise, but he's on solid ground here. We're still not convinced on the efficacy of offshore drilling, but he is, and who here is a single issue voter anyway? and: We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs. We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology. All of these things we can do as Americans and we can take on this mission and we ca...

The McCain campaign press office has just released this statement, "Yesterday, the U.S. Congress passed legislation clearing the way for the U.S.-India Civil-Nuclear Agreement to come into force. Governor Palin and I congratulate the Congress on moving this important legislation forward. India has been a responsible democracy and this agreement allows it to become further integrated into the global effort to control proliferation of dangerous technologies. The agreement will also allow the U.S. and India to cooperate in taking maximum advantage of new technologies that can provide energy without relying on greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels. "Our friendship with India is rooted in the norms and values we hold in common with the great democracies of Asia. Indian Prime Minister Singh has called liberal democracy 'the natural order of social and political organization in today's world.' When Governor Palin met with Prime Minister Singh in New York last week, they o...

Senators Obama and McCain participated in the first of the Presidential debates on Friday night. Although planned to focus on foreign policy, the debate covered a range of topics with significant domestic importance, including energy policy. Nuclear energy was mentioned at three points in the discussion of energy policy. The first mention came from Senator McCain: MCCAIN: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power. Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. You can't get there from here and the fact is that we can create 700,000 jobs by building constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by the year 2030. Nuclear power is not only important as far as eliminating our dependence ...

The states still have to weigh in here, but the Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling is expiring before our eyes (to be more precise, on the 30th of this month): The end of the ban will not lead to a rush of new drilling any time soon, but it would be a big win for Republican Presidential nominee John McCain who has made opening most U.S. offshore areas to drilling a key part of his campaign. His Democratic rival, Barack Obama , supports limited offshore drilling as part of a bigger overhaul of U.S. energy policy. We're not as sure as Reuters' Tom Doggett is of the political benefit to McCain, mostly because all eyes are off this issue and Congress has understandably moved energy policy from a boil to a simmer, if that. In fact, if gas prices spike in the next couple of weeks, as seems possible, a (rather unfair) talking point emerges for Obama. Of course, both campaigns have been regular ad machines, so there's that, and it could come up in the debate this Frida...

Actually, Obama got his questionnaire in a couple of weeks ago, with McCain following this week. But the Scientists and Engineers for America , the non-partisan group that prepared the questionnaire, have set up a page so you can see both candidates' responses together. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the areas of difference are very few. McCain tilts a bit more toward ethical considerations on hot-button issues (stem cells, genetic research) but Obama is certainly conscious of such considerations in his answers. Likewise, Obama tilts a bit more toward environmental concerns where that is a consideration (ocean health, water) but McCain doesn't neglect those issues, either. (We do get an uncomfortable tingle when McCain puts intellectual property issues as a top issue in the innovation category - science benefits most when least encumbered.) Anyway, energy is one of the topics. Here's the question: Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainabilit...

Now that the Democrats and Republicans have wrapped up their party conventions, let's review, shall we? We heard from Senator McCain and Governor Palin a full endorsement of nuclear energy - it's in in the Republican mix without caveats - McCain even dinged Obama for not being a heartier supporter. (We spotlight the nuclear references in all the speeches a few posts down.) Senators Obama and Biden, meanwhile, hedged on somewhat amorphous safety issues. We can let you speculate on the reasons for this; we'd guess Democrats are following the lead of the environmental wing of the party, although even that subset has softened considerably on nuclear in the last several years. But the most striking thing is that all the major candidates voiced support for nuclear energy. This is the year nuclear energy got its long-deserved seat at the post-partisan dinner table (with perhaps no dessert from the Democrats) and no longer has to live in the dusty, locked attic with crazy Uncle Ern...

Here's John McCain on nuclear energy: My fellow Americans, when I'm president, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It's an ambitious plan, but Americans are am...

One of our astute readers noticed that the Obama ad we posted the other day unfairly dinged McCain for not supporting transport of used nuclear fuel through Arizona. Jon Ralston over the the Las Vegas Sun takes up the cudgel. Here’s a fuller context , quoted by Ralston: [Sam] Shad[, host of Nevada Newsmakers]: “Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain?” McCain: “No, I would not. No, I would not. I think it can be made safe.” (We merged Ralston’s version a little to fully contextualize the quote.) The Obama ad doesn’t include that last line, and Ralston assumes McCain misheard the question as asking him whether he would object to fuel being transported through Arizona. Fair enough, though a little ambiguous – one could say the missing line indicates McCain is playing the same “safe” card as does Obama. And there’s more along those line. Ralston notes that McCain might be hedgin...

We’ve viewed somewhat nervously the seeming effort to strip away a forward-looking energy policy in favor of the sparkly but short-sighted goal of replacing our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on domestic oil. It’s an election year diversion that has taken way too much attention away from broader energy issues, especially since there seems no actual way to achieve the stated goal – lowering gasoline prices - with the stated approach – loads of new drilling. The arguments over drilling have done nothing more or less than successfully sucked the light of a reasonable approach to energy issues into an oily black pool. So it is heartening to see some Senators – the informal Gang of 10, with five from each party - try to claw their way out of the blackness to find a way back to broader and more urgent energy issues. Calling their bill the New Energy Reform Act of 2008 or New Era, it allows some drilling while proposing a fairly ambitious portfolio. This is what they propose...

Because most of Washington’s television needs are served by local outlets and Washington is not a battleground for the presidential candidates – all that action’s over in Virginia – we don’t see as many of the presidential ads that many of you have endured. So it struck us as odd to read the following   from the invaluable Factcheck.org about a new energy-focused ad from the McCain campaign: Yet the imagery in the ad of solar technology and windmills might lead viewers to draw some false conclusions about McCain's energy policy. McCain has been less than enthusiastic about the development of wind and solar energy. The Politico points out that McCain's favored source of alternative energy, nuclear reactors, did not make the cut for visuals – there are no shots of a cooling tower in the ad. Here’s the ad in question: And here’s an earlier ad in which does include nuclear in its litany, though a bit separate from its renewable cousins: ...

Here’s the whole transcript . You don’t have to filter it through our observations. As you might expect, McCain addressed the issue du jour, high gas prices. People are hurting, small farmers, truckers, and taxi drivers unable to cover their costs, small business owners struggling to meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks falling. All of this, in large part, because the price of oil is too high, and the supply of oil too uncertain. These citizens believe their government has a duty to finally assure the energy security of this country, and they are right. As you might expect from a very political speech, McCain has to both answer to and challenge industries and the electorate in order to gain support for a change in public policy. Sometimes, that can lead to too many circles getting squared, but we'll put aside the partisan aspects - since the hot air of political discussion could displace all other energy sources with enough left over to po...

Senator John McCain, in response to a question, made a curious comment about cap-and-trade yesterday: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those - impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met. We guess his idea is to get the EPA up to speed on administration and an infrastructure in place for auctions (if there are auctions – and assuming cap-and-trade eventually makes it through Congress – both McCain and Obama favor it), but it seems peculiar not to have the initial caps and a schedule for them in place when the program is ready to go. Otherwise, no market for carbon credits is created. We’ve noticed McCain’s penchant for comments so terse there may be nothing at all or a universe of detail behind them. It’s not a bad politician trick, and McCain may be trying to signal industry not to worry so much...

To put it mildly, they differ - in some ways reflecting the general approach of their parties. First, McCain : Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps are little more than subsidies that enrich special interests. He has long called for scrapping the federal ethanol tax credit, saying America's corn-ethanol industry can and should stand on its own. He has also voted against requiring electric utilities to boost their use of renewable energy sources, preferring to let cities and states set their own targets for renewable energy. And Obama: [Obama]'s promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that can be made from materials such as switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025 get at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind, the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for less than 1% of U.S. electricity supply). Letting the mark...