Apparently there has been a bit of a tiff over Obama's position on nuclear power; indeed I understand there was quite a flame war. Glad I missed it, but from what I read, some clatch of Obama supporters were royally pissed that some Hillary supporter(s?) suggested that Obama is in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry. I don't know that he's in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry, and I don't know what kind of money he does or doesn't get from them, but I do know that he is at best on the fence about nuclear power and at worst a semi-closeted supporter of nuclear power.
As I start this, I want to make it clear that, since about three days after Edwards dropped out, I have been an Obama supporter. I voted for him in the New Mexico caucus/primary last Tuesday. At this point, I don't think that his apparent position on nuclear power is or would be a deal breaker for my continuing to support his candidacy. Having said that, I think his position on nuclear power needs to be more transparent than it is, and by some reactions around here, apparently it's not transparent at all.
So, is Obama nuclear power friendly? Make the jump with me and let's see.
Here are Obama's comments on nuclear power during the Las Vegas debate:
Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don't want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.
Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn't build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let's see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.
The first highlighted part sounds a bit fishy to me, because while it's conceivable that there could be a cost efficient and safe way to produce nuclear power, the real serious problems lie in insuring the power plants and, significantly more importantly, storing the radioactive waste that a nuclear power plant produces. Quite simply, there is no safe way currently known to store high-level nuclear waste, and no such knowledge appears on the horizon, or even beyond it.
In the beginning of the next paragraph, he does say that if we can't solve these problems, we shouldn't build more plants; that looks promising. But notice his original phrasing in stating the problems in paragraph one:
if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively.
Notice he doesn't say that we need to store it "effectively and safely; he merely says we need to store it "effectively." For someone who parses words as carefully and effectively as Obama does, there is a striking difference here between what he says we need to do to justify producing nuclear energy, and what we need to do to justify storing the radioactive waste it produces. It appears his standard is a bit lower for handling the more dangerous aspect of nuclear power generation, or, at the very least, he has left himself some wiggle room.
Obama continues in the Las Vegas debate (same source as above):
OBAMA: That's why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We're going to cap greenhouse gases. We're going to say to every polluter that's sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "We're going to charge you a dollar -- we're going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there." That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.
And if nuclear energy can't meet the rigors of the marketplace -- if it's not efficient and if we don't solve those problems -- then that's off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that's going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.
It's noteworthy that Edwards, in response to this part of Obama's statement, a few minutes later says the following :
If you were to double the number of nuclear power plants on the planet tomorrow -- if that were possible -- it would deal with about one-seventh of the greenhouse gas problem. This is not the answer.
I can't (and it's not the purpose of this diary to) speak to this, but I do not believe Edwards is pulling this out of his ass. Regardless, given what we already know about the impossibility of safely storing nuclear waste, it should already be off the table. It's pretty obvious so far that Obama is either 1. On the fence regarding nuclear power, or 2. In support of nuclear power but is unwilling to say so, or 3. Against nuclear power but still unwilling to say so.
So, in hopes of a little clarity, let's go back to here, Obama's 'Hearing Statement' on June 26, 2005 during the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works hearing regarding Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
[A]s Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.
"But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.
Well, this sounds fairly pro nuclear power, pretty much hands down, with some verbal safety caveats that are necessary to keep nuclear energy "on the table," regardless of whether it's actually feasible now or in the foreseeable future to store high level radioactive nuclear waste in a safe fashion.
And, in case you think this is somehow my anti-nuke idiosyncratic reading of his position as stated in the 2005 Senate committee (and fairly clearly echoed in the 2008 Las Vegas Democratic candidates debate,) check this out from the NEI Nuclear Notes blog:
Friday, May 27, 2005
Senator Obama: Climate Change, Air Quality Keeps Nuclear Energy On the Table
Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) 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:
[A]s Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.
But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.
For the rest of the statements from yesterday's hearing, click here.
Thanks to Paul Primavera of the Know Nukes and Safe, Clean Nuclear Power groups on Yahoo.
This is quoted from the blog of the NEI, The Nuclear Energy Institute. And who is the NEI? Here's what they say about themselves at their own website:
NEI's Mission: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process.
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.
And the final note? This, the first comment on the NEI's May 27, 2005 Nuclear Notes blog entry quoted just above (and note the date, giving pretty compelling reason to believe that this isn't a presidential run 'hit-job' on Obama):
Norris McDonald said...
Isn't this great. I met with Obama's environment legislative assistant about two months ago and we discussed nuclear power. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they were open to accepting nuclear power as a reasonable technology.
Of course, this does not necessarily mean that Senator Obama is going to vote for the energy bill or McCain/Lieberman. Senator Obama has also introduced an interesting ethanol subsidy bill.
I believe Obama did vote for that energy bill, and that is what Russert and Hillary hit him with during the Las Vegas debate; here I quote Russert's "question":
RUSSERT: I want to pick up on that.
Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.
That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, "The big winner: nuclear power." The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.
We haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost.
Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?
Obama tries to justify the vote by reference to other alternative energy sources, but, well, it's pretty lame.
I think, overall, it's pretty obvious that Obama is, at the very least, sympathetic to nuclear power. He wants to keep it on the table as an option when, in fact, it really needs to be completely off the table unless and until a SAFE method of storing nuclear waste is discovered. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, and the nuclear power industry--and I presume Barack Obama too--knows it. It's not enough to insist on keeping it on the table as an alternative energy source while calling for safety measures. It CANNOT be an option until ALL aspects--production of the power AND storing/disposal of the waste are both safe.
I want to reiterate, after all of this, that I am still supporting Obama despite this position on nuclear energy. But, to the extent that we consider ourselves a reality-based community, the truth of Obama's nuclear position needs to be clarified so that when we go to try to move him on it, we know what we're dealing with.