Obama seemed to support the nuclear power industry when he was in Chicago but he kept very quite about it.

If he gives it vocal support now he is going to have a lot of grief from the nuclear phobics in his party, so he will probably down play it until he is elected.
Gore does not support it in a big way and he has a lot of influence on the young Democrats who may not turn out to vote for Obama if he strongly supports what they see as a force of evil.

Good question.

I have made assumptions, but frankly never researched it.

Let's find out.

Obama pro nuclear all the way.

Obama has said that he supports nuclear energy that is built to clean and safe standards. Obama also supports wind and solar energy, including the alternative energy plan that the House of Representatives has passed, but is faltering in the Senate under the thread of a Bush veto.

The McCain/Palin energy plan is "drill, baby, drill" anywhere, anytime.

"Obama has said that he supports nuclear energy that is built to clean and safe standards"

Greg K,

Please explain that statement. How clean and how safe? How long will it take to attain those (undefined) standards? If Obama is elected, then reelected, how many new nuclear power plants will be aboard, at the end of his second term?

I am trying to drill in on the actual views, about nuclear power, of the candidates, not just ethereal concepts.

If the answer for Obama is "zero", then we have something we can vote on. If the answer for McCain is "ten", that is also something we can consider. I am not interested in vague concepts.

This is a serious policy issue, and we deserve serious answers, either way.

Both nuclear plants and oil wells take a long time to build. Even if the US opened the Alaska wildlife refuges to the oil companies today, that oil would not be available to the public for years (perhaps more than 2 presidential terms).

If McCain was president, I doubt that he could build 10 dirty and unsafe nuclear power plants during his term. That is why any energy program must have many facets, including a strong emphasis on conservation and public transit.

Regarding "clean and safe", would you want a nuclear power plant in your back yard? If not, then it is not clean and safe enough.

I am from France, where about 70% of our electricity is nuclear.

We have nuclear plants all over the country, almost all of them with old technology now..

I am here because, obviously, I prefer American ways on everything important. I am almost a citizen, but not yet, so I cannot yet vote here.

But, maybe in this one area it is time to look around at other countries. Of course, all things take many years to build, but does that mean we shouldn't start? Which one, Senator McCain or Senator Obama will start soonest?

Greg K, good summary, but you left one thing out of the Bush/McCain/Palin energy plan.

Attack and ravage middle east oil producing countries (killing as many humans in the process as is expedient) in order to own and/or cripple their oil production industries - thereby also making 'drill baby drill' a highly profitable and palatable undertaking back home in the US. (And market it as "god's mission" to dupe the unthinking and obedient religious right poor and middle class into sending their children for your bidding.

With McCain/Palin you can be sure that any energy production investments will be in expanding domestic oil production.

Keep talking, "Parent"...you and your like dig Obama's defeat deeper and deeper as the rest of America hears how extremely out of touch with reality your side is, and gets scared that Obama thinks the same way.

I give you the floor.

"Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto----"

Very incisive analysis of the economic and policy implications of nuclear power generation

However Gary did ask posters to keep on topic and not rant, so if feel your post in inappropriate and way out in the weeds by Garys' criteria

thanks

Gary,

Obama made the comment about clean and safe nuclear energy during his convention speech. I've not seen the details and I suspect they're not out there.

Very interesting article, by the way, in the New York Times on offshore wind generation. There's a potentially huge upside, even more than on land--once you get the things built. And this takes place in Deleware, so I'm sure Biden's aware of it.

Web Link

OP

"And this takes place in Deleware, so I'm sure Biden's aware of it."


Where is deleware, I know where tiny Delaware is, its wind generation capacity is minimal unless you build very expensive turbines off shore, it is a much better candidate for a nuclear power station.

Folks,

I'm just stepping in here for a moment. I love the fact that we all get excited about nuclear energy, and other energy sources, but we are about to get this thread shut down, unless we stay focused on the topic at hand.

Believe me, I can go to ideological war with anybody, and enjoy it, but I am trying, if possible, to lead a topic of major policy concern, without a bunch of sniping.

Can we, please, stay on topic?

To OhoonePar,

I haven't, yet, read you reference to offshore wind energy. I will, though. Offshore nuclear is also a real possibility.

Spelling,

Yes, I meant Delaware, land of many incorporations. And, yes, the turbines would be 12 miles offshore.

Read the article--because of rising energy costs, wind power is becoming more financially feasible. And you don't have the long-term waste and safety issues of nuclear.

One little fact that I thought was interesting is that 20 percent of Denmark's energy comes from wind power. The article estimates that wind could supply 20 percent of New York's without requiring huge changes in the grid.

Wind power is very unreliable( also kills mega tons of birds ) and you need a reliable base source like nuclear or coal/gas.

"Denmark in 2006 generated 45.6 billion kWh of electricity, 54% of this from coal (24.4 TWh being a big increase from previous years), 21% from gas and 13% (6.1 billion kWh) from wind. The wind contribution was 6.6 billion kWh in 2005, 18% of total. These figures however are artefacts since Denmark is neither isolated nor unified electrically"

A tiny country like Denmark has no relevance to the USA, Their gas from Russia is at price risk so they will build more coal power, nice to CO2?

Spelling,

The article in question deals with some of that. I suggest you read it before jumping to conclusions.

Your quote is unsourced and does not include 2007 figures, which put the energy generation at 19.7 percent according to Wikipedia and other sources. Why did you fail to source your quote or use current numbers? The aim is to get the figure up to 50 percent over the next decade.

Nor did you mention that Denmark's interest in wind power stems in part from its desire to reduce its reliance on coal (and its carbon footprint) as well not building nuclear power plants.

And the successful use of wind as a major power source in a first-world country is relevant. We're not going to use a single power source, but several states have power needs similar to those of Denmark, so it's worth reading about what wind can do. Indeed, Denmark shares transmission lines with the rest of Europe, so it's not disimilar to the relationship between the states.

There's no point in keeping a mind closed to wind power--even if you don't like T. Boone Pickens.

Here is the linkWeb Link

Look, Russia is putting an increasing price on energy to Europe, only France is in good shape with nuclear, UK is following, the only other base source for EU is coal, Germany has lots but it is anti green so nix that.
Pickens whats to make money for himself and his friends on real estate investments and construction, not that there is anything wrong with that,but he will be dead before the first turbine goes on line, he does not care.

The only solution for US is drill, drill , drill for gas and oil + nuclear+ longer term innovations in other alternatives. Actually gas is a good alternative for transportation, clean, cheap and domestic.

Anyway it may be a mute point, it looks like Obamas is tainted with Logan violations, his feet have turned to clay, the McClain/ Sarah momentum is now impacting NY and congress, he is a dead man walking, so the energy policy will be nuclear and drill for next 8 years after that the R and D investments in the private and university sector will pay off.
The solutions are being invented in the trailer @ MIT,Stanford, CALTECH and Texas U as we speak.

Some of us remember how, when some subsidies lapsed, many of the Altamont bird bashers went quiet.

It was three Mile Island that basically shut down the US nuclear energy effort. An embarrassing series of huge design gaffes at Diablo Canyon nailed the coffin shut. Also, there's no place to put the spent fuel except store it on the site, in easy reach for any terrorist driving an airplane. Think of a ground zero at San Onofre.

Nobody applied to build a nuke for over 30 years because they couldn't take on the liability of a super-TMI or a Chernobyl, and the government wouldn't socialize their risks. With our insurance companies failing under Bush-McSame economics, only a fool would underwrite bulding a nuke. And Wall Street's getting short on those.

Looks like we going to have a big push for Nuclear in 2009

Today www.intrade.com gives right now the McCain ticket a 51.2% probability of winning the election, versus 47.4% to Obama's.

The spread seems to be somehow solidifying and is consistent with the polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby)

When it comes to electoral votes, McCain has now a modest advantage in the polls (200 vs 193).

A sensible prediction is that McCain will win if all the environmental factors remain more or less equal at their present state and there aren't some unexpected dramatic event coming up taht could tilt the balance in Obama's favor.

I would count four main environmental factors:

1) The public continues to perceive an anti-Palin, anti-McCain bias in the national media.

2) The trend among independents to go over to the McCain camp continues.

2) The Obama campaign doesn't reach out to new sociological layers.

4) The Obama supporters keep on the present aggressive trend against Palin and McCain in the Internet.

Now the decisive event from here to Nov 4th are the debates. High Noon, really.

Until barratry becomes a crime, the greenies will continue to shovel their recycled complaints through compliant courts. It will take a gathering storm of the will to defrock silly judges before reason will return to the energy process.

Thus far in thsi string, I surmise:

1. McCain appears to support nuclear.

2. Obama claims he does, but uses very amorphous phrases, to the effect that his natural supporters would never, reasonably, allow him to build a single nuclear plant, over 8 years. He seems to want it both ways.

Conclusion: Obama does not support nuclear.

Am I wrong? I don't want to get it wrong, on such a major policy issue, so please correct me, if I have misinterpreted the posts, thus far.

Gary-

I believe you are correct and I hope the rest of the voters get it too.

Energy is a critical issue for our economy and security, the lead time before sources come on line is long, we need to act in January 2009.

Looks like the new Republican brand will impact the Congressional elections too so that if McCain wins he will not face an impossible logjam. He can what Regan did and speak directly to the people on these matters.

BTW good framing on your opening post calling for relevance and civility.

For nuke or agin nuke, it makes no difference. Nuke ain't gonna happen until the government socializes the risks.

"For nuke or agin nuke, it makes no difference. Nuke ain't gonna happen until the government socializes the risks"

Paul,

I thought a license was just issued. I think liability insurance is built into the formula, with the government taking away libility after a certain level. Am I wrong?

Aren't we already on our way to new nuclear plants?

Uh Gary - I can't put nukes in my gas tank, so who gives a &#$%!!!

All companies, all industries have liability limitations, it is called bankruptcy. And, Monroe Park guy, the natural gas that is now the only permissible boiler fuel in California could go into your gas tank.

"I thought a license was just issued. I think liability insurance is built into the formula, with the government taking away libility after a certain level. Am I wrong?"

Gary, I said: Nuke ain't gonna happen until the government socializes the risks. So here's Big Government limiting private liability - the worst kind of socialized risk. It means the burden of risk is not on the perps but on you and anyone else living downwind who gets hurt; you are on your own in Strontium90land.

Many thanks for confirming my statement.

Let me help both Paul and Gary on this one.

The nuclear industry is covered by the Price-Anderson Act (PAA). This act limits liability for nuclear companies, in case of a major accdient...at that point, the liability goes to the governemnt. However, there is little evidence that the PAA is a "subsidy" for nuclear power. For a review of various aspects see:

Web Link

Since the PAA has been around for decades it is hardly necessary to provide additional measures to allow new nuclear plants to be built. There are, indeed, a number of new nuclear plants moving forward, including Uranium enrichment efforts in NM (supported by Bill Richardson).

Three Mile Island (TMI) was an operatinal failure, but a safety success. In fact, TMI never came close to triggering PAA limits. Modern designs allow even more safety assurances. The community surrounding TMI is prospering with well-paid middle class jobs.

Nulcear energy is a major asset to a community. If we were to build a nuclear plant in Palo Alto, we would be on easy street, in terms of tax base and services. I would love to see a nuclear plant in my back yard, becasue it would build a better community, and my property values would rise significantly.

Nuclear also, and importantly, addresses the issue of global warming.

Scaremongering ("Strontium90land") ignores the other end of the scare spectrum (25 ft. rise in sea levels, due to global warming). I think both of these scare tactics are weird, even as political gambits, but one must, occasionally, pick one's own poison.

Gary:
"Three Mile Island (TMI) was an operatinal failure, but a safety success."

WTF? Gary, they had a big freaking hydrogen bubble in the reactor core that could have easily created a mushroom cloud if it exploded - and noboby knew what to do except wait and cross your fingers it went away - which, luckily it did.

Your statement is like saying that Flight 93 was a "safety success" because some passengers overwhelmed the terrorists and ended up crashing the plane in a PA field instead of it ending up smack dab in the middle of the White House!

This whole thead is ridiculous anyway - other than you or your immediate family, is there one other person out there who's going to vote for President based on the candidate's views on nukes???

Spinner,

I will take that one, even though you call me Gary. Gary can answer you, if he wants to. You might want to spend a little more time on the details, Spinner.

TMI was contained within a very strong containment structure.

" experts determined on Sunday, April 1, that the bubble could not burn or explode because of the absence of oxygen in the pressure vessel. Further, by that time, the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble."

Web Link

TMI was, indeed, a safetly success, despite the operational failure.

Back to the original question, I think Obama opposes nuclear, while McCain supports nuclear. McCain is direct about it, while Obama is straddling the fence, as usual.

Greg,

Yes, those same "experts" you cite were caught flat-footed when the bubble first appeared, since, according to them, that could never happen! I also dare say there was oxygen present, mixed in with the hydrogen (H2O - H2 + O2).
Finally, the line "the utility had succeeded in greatly reducing the size of the bubble" cracks me up as, again, the experts has no answers at the time and just hoped that the bubble would be reabsorbed with the passage of time. The utility did nothing, just downplayed the incident and crossed their fingers.

Head Spinning/You can't revise:


Using the term WTF is a dead giveaway to your age, with supporting evidence of the rest of your illogic.

This explains the attitude, and also why we adults are no longer even trying to have a discussion with you.

In the debate last night, McCain clearly supported nuclear power. Obama briefly mentioned it as an aside, as long as it is "safe".

Isn't it time to force both of the candidates to define the basic conditions that would allow nuclear power to generate electricity? After all, we are quickly heading into an all-electric world.

I suggest that the next debate force the issue.

PS: Please keep your responeses rational, and not inflammatory.

Gary:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Who cares?
It's about 1,328,429,640th on the list of things we give a __ about, just above the $3 million spent on "DNA testing of moose" McCain mentioned last night.

ZZZZ,

Although I can appreciate a fight in the trenches, I am trying to keep this thread above board.

I happen to think that nuclear power is a very important issue, going forward, either way. Many people care about this issue.

I would like to keep this thread above the Weekly cutoff level, and to have a serious discussion about it.

Do you have a serious opinion?

"I think Obama opposes nuclear"

Another Obama fantasy. He's in bed with Exelon!

for sure,

My point is that Obama and McCain should be forced on this issue. They need to define parameters. Thus far, McCain appears to support building many more nuclear plants. Obama continues to demand some level of absolute "safe".

Both of them need to explain, one way or the other.

Our all-electric future is dependent on the answer.

Doh - of course we need nuclear power.
Now where's the donuts???
And what's that flashing red light mean? Ah, who cares!

Homer,

I was hoping for a serious discussion.

If you can think of one, please let us all know.

When the plug-in electric cars don't get any charge, we will all think back to the current day, and understand that the current financial crisis is trivial, by comparison.

Any serious discusssions out there?

Gary -

One big objection to nuclear power, in the public eye, is the safe plan to store spent fuel.

Can you summarize the best approaches/thinking on that?

discussion,

The so-called "waste" is mostly U-238, depleted of U-235 (which was used up in the fission process to produce the heat to make the electricity). U-238 is not a fissionable elelement, in practical terms. There is also some Pu-239, the result of neutron capture. The U-238 can be "bred" into Pu-239 (in a breeder reactor), mixed with uranium and used to fuel nuclear power reactors (the mixed oxide or MOX approach). This would not only fission (and thereby destroy) much of the Pu-239, but also transmute a significant fraction of the remainder into Pu-240 and heavier isotopes that would make the resulting mixture useless for nuclear weapons. Thus, the waste is not really waste...it is a valuable resource. Whatever leftover residue that remains, at the end of the full cycle, can be vitrified (made into glass), encased in stainless steel and either stored or sunk into a subduction zone.

Jimmy Carter banned breeder reactors in this country, because he did not want large quantities of Pu-239 to be produced, and possibly used to make weapons. However, countries that want nuclear weapons can isolate U-235 (from yellowcake), as Iran is now doing. IMO, it is irresponsbile not to use breeder reactors to obtain immense new sources of electricity, as well as to massively reduce depleted uranium rods.

Hope that helps.

Gary,

That is not too bad on your part. You seem to define yourself as a highly ideological person. However, you have done your homework, at least to a minmal level. I notice that you cribbed a couple of statements from Wikipedia, however that is permissible, becasue those statements are correct.

I concur with you that nuclear is a major potential answer to our energy problems. I especially like your notion of U-238 breeding. However, I have been through these battles before, and I don't think you will succeed, because there is an irrational fear of radioactivity. It will take a major economic depression, based on energy inavailability, to turn this around.

"Does Obama support nuclear power development in this country?"

poogle "obama, exelon" - the press didn't bother to, so you'll have to find out on your own.

errrr. "google".....ha ha