Posted on 05/07/2008 8:56:00 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Oh, okay, thanks!
I’m learning. LOL
Reagan was a lot smarter than most people give him credit for when it came to getting things done. He worked to find common ground. He forged coalitions. He used personal persuasion and charm to win allies. He offered incentives for people to join him. When he knew he couldn't get everything he wanted, he compromised to get at least 70-80% of what he wanted. It is possible to get things done in DC, if you play your cards right. Reagan had to work with dyed-in-the-wool liberals like O'Neill, but he got things done and didn't abandon core principles.
I know, I know, Reagan is gone and won't be coming back, so we have to make the best of what we have. But it sure would be nice to have someone on our side who would exercise some leadership and take the initiative, instead of being simply passive and reactive.
thanks
I’ll check it out!
“Clinton’s energy platform was “better than the others” because of its focus on nonnuclear sources, though she appeared to change her stances in different states,”
No shiite Sherlock!
I don't know why you think 'big oil' (who ever that is) would care. In the US, less than 3% of our electricity is generated with oil and that is primarily in remote areas that have no access to natural gas or coal. If anything, oil companies who also buy lots of electricity would be very supportive of having low cost nuclear electricity.
Big oil could buy up all the coal and then in a combined cycle plant, the coal could be gasified and turned into synthetic petroleum products... big oil still turns a profit, the reactor still makes electricity... now the only one that would complain is Big Ag... no one would need their gas crops...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.