Crossposted from my diary earlier today on MyDD
Many people decry building new nuclear power plants. Others see it as a good thing. Regardless of where you stand, it is important to know where the candidates stand.
Come around after the fold to see and hear where Clinton, Edwards and Obama stand on building new nuclear energy plants in this country.
1. Hillary Clinton.
What about nuclear power?
I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear.
a. Bill Clinton (for background. Hillary Clinton’s agnostic position is a bit inpenetrable. Give this history the weight you think it deserves, which may range from none to a lot)
Bill Clinton backed the Entergy Corporation’s outrageous plan to soak Arkansas ratepayers with the cost overruns on the company’s Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana.
The Clinton years indeed saw an all-out expansion of nuclear power, not only in the US, but all over the globe. First came the deal to begin selling nuclear reactors to China, announced during Jiang Zemin’s 1997 visit Washington, even though Zemin brazenly vowed at the time not to abide by the so-called “full scope safeguards” spelled out in the International Atomic Energy Act. The move was apparently made over the objections of Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who cited repeated exports by China of “dual use” technologies to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also weighed in against the deal, pointing out in a report to the President that “China was the single most import supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction” worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said these nuclear reactors will be “a lot better for the planet than a bunch of dirty coal-fired plants” and will be “a great opportunity for American vendors” — that is, Westinghouse.
2. Barack Obama.
Obama also refused to commit to a ban against using nuclear power, when asked by a young voter. In his speech in Portsmouth yesterday on renewable energy, Obama said that development money should be spent on researching safe ways to use and dispose of nuclear power. He reiterated that stance today.
General Electric/Microsoft Wholly Owned Corporate Media (msnbc)
During a Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who serves on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions “on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.” Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry’s top trade publication, praised the senator. “Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of ‘common sense solutions.’ And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems like the Senator is keeping an open mind.”
Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.
3. John Edwards.
Q: What about nuclear power as an alternative energy source?
A: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.
Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
John Edwards addresses nuclear energy in Florence, SC
John Edwards on nuclear:
RUSSERT: Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power here in the United States?
EDWARDS: No.
RUSSERT: Period?
EDWARDS: No. So that was less than 30 seconds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21013767/
4. CNN Debate: Edwards, Obama, and Clinton on nuclear energy:
My personal position on building new nuclear plants is well stated here by those much more expert than I am:
The Nuclear Power Danger
Nuclear reactors emit radioactivity; present inviting terrorist targets; are inextricably linked to nuclear weapons – depending on fuel chain facilities that can be diverted to nuclear weapons use – and are too expensive and too slow to build to combat climate change. They leave mountains of radioactive waste, dangerous for millennia. An accident could result in devastating health consequences.
The age of nuclear power and fossil fuels has passed. We have excellent, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives that are available and ready to implement.
To learn more about how we can do without nuclear power and fossil fuels, see the Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free special report.
In addition, many dangers of nuclear power are listed here: Beyond Nuclear
But I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Others claim nuclear power is necessary and good: NEI
NEI is the policy organization for the nuclear technologies industry. NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world.
Pro nuclear energy and pro-new nuclear plants information and arguments can be found at the NEI
If you are opposed to building more nuclear plants in this nation, there is a clear choice: John Edwards. In contrast, Brack Obama seems sympathetic to at least the possibility of building more nuclear plants. If you favor that, he might be the candidate for you, at least on that issue. And if you are “agnostic” on more nuclear plants in this nation, then Hillary Clinton may be the right choice.
My personal view is similar to John Edwards on this issue.
The answer to flame wars is not to suppress debate, but to do it more civilly. This is a political blog in which issues and candidates are to be discussed. I love C&J and the various other communities here, but we are about politics and issues, and passion for both is why many of us are here, including, I believe, Markos. I believe we should try to remember that the person on the other side of the internet is a human being who’s views may well be arrived at in the utmost good faith. Furthermore, your enemy today may be your ally tomorrow.
UPDATE I: From Okamachan13 in the comments (on the Daily Kos version of this diary):
The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama, have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs.
(snip)
The only major candidate opposed to increased reliance on nuclear power is a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that during a visit to that city in February, Mr. Edwards declared that atomic energy had no future in America. A spokeswoman for the candidate, Kate Bedingfield, said the report slightly overstated his position, but she added, “He does not advocate building additional nuclear power plants in the U.S.” … ..
