Nuclear Energy Heats Up US Presidential Race (About time!)

Reuters/guardian.co.uk ^ | Tuesday May 6 2008 | Jeff Mason

[kellynla]

INDIANAPOLIS, May 6 (Reuters) - John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.

Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three U.S. presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.

McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.

"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.

McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition. "Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the U.S. energy portfolio," he said.

Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.

There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide. Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.

[kellynla]

"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance,"..."Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the U.S. energy portfolio,"

Now you're talking!

[Da Coyote]

The obamaloon wants to “address it’s flaws”? Yup, that marshmallow undergrad and graduate law degree is gonna tell him all he needs to know about nuclear power. Another brick in the wall. Perhaps he might like to start with a battery, wires, and a light bulb. Given enough time, he might get some light...er see the light.

[RightWhale]

People need to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook.

—Milhouse

[antiRepublicrat]

Finally, a policy where I am in complete agreement with McCain, although not in complete agreement about the motive (Global Warming).

[E Rocc]

I just became more comfortable about supporting McCain.

Don't forget, he was a naval officer while many ships were nuclear powered. He knows it's safe if it's respected and handled properly.

I've always said that the true test of if someone is honestly concerned about "global warming" is to see how they feel about nuclear power.

-Eric

[Norman Bates]

The McCain List.
Common sense conservatism

[AT7Saluki]

While we’re at it, lets clear the obstacles to refining the spent fuel, so it takes up less space. You know, like other nations do?

[kellynla]

I don’t care what reason they give as long as they “get off the dime” and allow more nuclear power plants to be built!

I am stick & tired of being led around by the nose by a bunch of camel jockeys & tin horn dictators.
If we can put a man on the moon, we can sure as hell become energy independent AND the largest exporter of energy to the rest of the world...”if you build it, they will come!” LOL

[kellynla]

While we’re at it, lets clear the obstacles to refining the spent fuel, so it takes up less space. You know, like other nations do?

How does that work? In layman's terms, please. LOL

[Dick Bachert]

Ditto here.

And it’s ABOUT DAMN TIME!!!

Should have resumed permitting plants 20 years ago.

And the feds need to take a lot less than 12 YEARS to permit these new ones.

[subterfuge]

Anyone who believes Obamassein or Killary would support nuclear power as POTUS is deceieved.

[kbennkc]

Finally, a policy where I am in complete agreement with McCain, although not in complete agreement about the motive (Global Warming).

This is the kind of stuff he should be saying to his rat pals he is always reaching out to .They oppose domestic production and he comes up with gas tax holiday . The Nuclear energy discussion , should be no more complicated than allowing the market to force people to face scientific and technological realities .

[NormsRevenge]

Still, it takes years to get a plant online, even with environmental regs waived and such..

I used to traipse around nuke plants for work, we shoudl have never stoped building them, the research never stopped on making them safer.

[MrB]

The “greenhouse gas” issue is bogus, but...

if it leads to nuclear power plants providing 90% of our power,

call me a AGW supporter!

Actually, it’s only good for an argument with a greeny weenie. Oh, so you want to reduce co2 emissions? How about nuclear? Oh the horror!

[tobyhill]

***Barack Obama wants to address its flaws***

I didn't know Obama was a nuclear scientist?

[kellynla]

And there's no time like the present to get started! LOL
Bush sure didn't use any of his 2001 90% approval rating capital to get the ball moving! And none of his predecessors did either for the past 30 years!!!

[Dogbert41]

We built Yucca Mountain for the waste in Nevada. Then the greenies ran it down so much in the media that every freak coward bastard politician here won't touch the subject with a ten foot pole.

Nevada could have had a 1000 power plants, feeding the whole continent, and but no, we need to keep our billion square miles of nothing pristine for the cockroaches.

[kellynla]

“Barack Obama wants to address its flaws?”

The black racist can “address its flaws” next year on the Senate floor because he may win the primary but he is burnt toast come 11/4!

[PapaBear3625]

How does that work? In layman's terms, please. LOL

In the US, recycling of spent fuel rods is not allowed (unlike Europe or japan) due to perceived danger of nuclear proliferation. This is absurd. It results in much more nuke waste than we would have if we just recycled

When most U.S. nuclear plants were built, the industry—with federal government encouragement—planned to recycle used nuclear fuel. In 1979, President Carter, completing a process begun by President Ford, banned commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing in order to address concerns raised about the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. This decision mandated a once-through, single use fuel cycle. Although President Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban in 1981, non-proliferation concerns continue to guide U.S. policy. Reprocessing and recycling are also not currently cost-effective in the United States, although recycling is being done in other countries.

[kellynla]

Folks just need to be educated on the present possibilities and safety measures associated with nuclear energy.

Hopefully, that will come and come soon!