Obama blasts McCain on ANWR drilling, nuclear power.

Source: NEI Nuclear Notes

We expected that nuclear energy policy would be in the mix during this presidential campaign, we just didn't expect it to be so soon. From Senator Obama's just-concluded energy address to 100 invited guests at Springs Preserve in Las Vegas, NV:

Meanwhile, the oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven’t touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America’s total oil production, and John McCain wants to give them more. Well that might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain. Folks, these are not serious energy policies. They are not new energy policies. And they are certainly not the kind of energy policies that will give families the relief they need or our country the oil independence we must have.



Read more: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-energy-address-in-las-vegas.html

---------------


Full text of the speech available at the site.

On edit fixed link.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-energy-address-in-las-vegas.html

Thanks for the heads up. Obama supports nuclear power with appropriate safeguards. I'm glad that he's not phobic or hard line against it.

coming soon to your neighborhood.

yay

Change that, we won't need nuclear.

Unless you don't believe in climate change, in which case we can just continue getting 50% of our electricity from coal and all that.

The French have 90 percent of their power from nuclear. We get 20. Who do you think contributes less problems to the environment?

you really trust business (especially in the new era of minimal-to-nonexistent regulation) to keep some sort of horrible accident from happening? not to mention the little waste thingy

I know the odds are very long against a catastrophe happening, but it HAS happened, and it's almost happened here, to....not talking about TMI, either. think Detroit. also, I have a friend who was one of the two bone marrow transplant doctors that Armand Hammer sent to Chernobyl in the immediate aftermath, and I don't like to think of the details of what went on in human scale. that has severely colored my thoughts about what might happen if.....

you make a valid point about France, but, again the problem is what happens if, well, something bad happens? It's a trade off, obviously, and I don't know how one rationally makes that sort of decision

I'm very well aware of the upside of nukes/the downside of coal, but trading a very uncertain, unknowable future for a short-term fix (that in itself is debatable, if for no other reason than the time it'll take to get a meaningful number of nukes online....unless you want to cut corners to get them up and running posthaste)

and who's going to pay for it, btw? the same people that are paying for that munificent war in Iraq?

I don't know the answer; I'm afraid there isn't any. we waited too long, is my best guess

Whether we like it or not, we need to shift to alternative energies.

Unlike biofuels, it doesn't raise food prices around the world, causing riots and starvation.

Unlike solar, it can generate a lot of energy without taking up too much land.

Unlike geothermal, which is the best option btw, and hydro, it doesn't have to have certain geological features.

Considering how many plants we have, as well as other countries, including under Bush, I think we've shown that we can manage nuclear plants.

Ultimately, we'll need some of each of the alternative energies.

incredible, criminal negligence that was part of the equation that resulted in the Chernobyl fiasco. that said, my real worry is that someday the same sort of situation might result here, in France, or, say, Slovenia....a perfect storm, if you will, which is usually what it takes for any sort of disastrous accident like that to happen, be it a plane crash, a dam bursting, or, oh, say, a successful terrorist attack. you know why they didn't crash a plane into that nuke near New York, right? cause they assumed it would have some sort of defense system. well, they STILL don't have anything like that in place.

and what's going to happen the next time France has to shut down most of its plants because the rivers that supply the cooling water are too hot?

http://a4nr.org/library/globalwarmingclimatechange/06.22.2007-globeandmail

it's already happened here, in Tennessee, for one place. dunno if there were others

I waver on this, but I just don't trust anything that complicated/dangerous, that's in the hands of ANY sort of huge bureaucracy, whether it's big business or big government

(should not trust itself) with nuclear technology, until the 'system' has been completely purged of corporate greed.

In general, in an ideal world, nuclear energy industries would be nationalized, or semi-nationalized as in France, Switzerland,... And employed only as a minimum part of an overall alternative energy, low consumption, high social equity mix.

It was developed by a nationalized utility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France

What ever happened to the straight talk express?

It can be a solution, but we have to dedicate our whole effort to it.

OMFG I cant believe they EVER put that tech in private hands!
IF It was the government, there would be constant over sight, and we could probably trust that the people working there had PROPER EXTENSIVE TRAINING!
Something no one appreciate or knows, is that the government pays VERY WELL and completely TRAINS it's technical staff (my dad was a gov ET his while career).

If nukes were in GOV hands we'd have people working on them that ACTUALLY KNOW what the hell they are doing. We'd have immediate government oversight, and at least >I< would sleep soundly knowing that, while anal, the government is also very good at following it's rules. this is the daily gov that RUNS the country, not administration XYZ.

I'm no fan of nuclear power, but if it ONE nuclear plant (gov run) would stop several coal and dirty plants, then I would be OK with it. The government under a responsible administration could set up funding for research into recycling the nuclear fuel rods, and how to make the best use of them, while creating the least amount of waste.

I know I'm naive in many things still. I have that spark of trust and hope that I just can't stamp out.

All I know is that private companies have fucked up from day 1 in power administration.
The power grid really needs to be GOV run, with an eye towards increasing green/renewable power sources every day.
There needs to be more electric cars made available, with buy-back programs, so that you can turn your current ICE gas guzzler into the government for a electric.

most people don't NEED a ICE engine powered car, they just need to go 20 odd miles a day.

YES YES I know... many here are the exception and are very good... but laws are written for the majority. and the MAJORITY of people would do just FINE with a electric 4-door hatch back that gets 1-200 miles a charge for 90% of their yearly life.

AND...I would point out that we need power to come from SOMEWHERE.... we get rid of oil, we still need to move vehicles from A to B, that means electricity needs to be created.

Personally I would make a law requiring ALL government buildings to have the latest in solar collection technology and huge tax breaks for people who put cells on their roofs.

oh well.. I can dream of Utopia, while working to make this place at least livable :)

Would you stand by quietly as someone began building one of these facilities a few miles up wind from where you and your family lives?

Of course not.

We have already been down this road more than than three decades ago. Indiana wanted to build a nuclear plant just across the lake (Lake Michigan) from Chicago where if everything had turned to shit the prevailing winds would have carried any fallout Right over a city of millions of people and it didn't get built.


http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/NIPSCO-INDUSTRIES-INC-Company-History.html

In 1974, three years after its original filing date, NIPSCO received a construction permit from the Atomic Energy Commission to build its first nuclear plant at a site adjacent to its Bailly station and to the Cowles Bog, an ecologically unique wetlands area within the recently created Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. An enormously controversial and costly project, Bailly Nuclear One was eventually abandoned in 1981 after $191 million had been spent with only one percent of the construction being completed, according to Robert Barker in Barron's. Despite NIPSCO's eventual triumph in state supreme court litigation over the placement of the facility, new cost projections caused by the delays proved insurmountable. Intensifying NIPSCO's loss was the Indiana high court's later ruling that NIPSCO could not amortize the failed project's costs over a 15-year period, forcing the company in 1985 to declare a net loss of $94.8 million.

solar and wind to power us until we are able to develop fusion reactors.

Better that than to be burning more coal and oil.

Its a shame that in general the leaders of our party dont support it.

they started digging today

correct me if I'm wrong on that

point is, it's already too late anyway

we're screwed

mother nature is starting to slough us off

after 10K years of 'civilization' we've shit our nest so badly in a hundred fifty years that we've made the place unfit for habitation

Thanks. (A lot of seriously crazy anti-environmentalist types, of course, but mostly I'm interested in the power gen industry's take on this election.)

It's really the topic for a journal and new post, but we can argue about how to generate electricity all day and miss the big picture.

Americans use way to fucking much of everything.

Roughly 5% of the world's population using 25% of the energy, creating 25% of the world's garbage AND 25% of the greenhouse gasses.

With the right combination of behavior and technology, we could be living on half the electricity with little impact on lifestyles.

I gotta go. I'm meeting with Jerry McNerney's office on energy and education at 10:00 AM.

Not with Jerry, with one of his reps.