President Obama Embraces Nuclear Power
One of the most interesting parts of an otherwise pompous State of the Union address was an off-hand endorsement of nuclear energy. It seems that President Obama's FY2011 budget will actually triple the loan guarantees for nuclear power plants from 18.5 billion dollars this year to 54 billion dollars next year.
Nuclear power plants were once the subject of ire of environmental groups. Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in the 1980s combined to all but kill nuclear power plant construction in the United States. Currently, nuclear power provides but twenty percent of the energy needs of the United States.
But the rise of global warming concerns coupled with advances in the efficiency and safety technology for nuclear power plants have caused nuclear power to get a new look. Even some environmentalists have taken notice that nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases that they claim is causing global warming. President Obama is pushing nuclear power as a carrot to entice some Republicans and moderate Democrats to support Cap and Trade legislation.
John McCain's warmly endorsed nuclear power as part of a clean energy solution. Then candidate Barack Obama's support was a little bit more tepid.
Plans are being developed for building the first new nuclear power plants in the United States in a generation. There are still a number of factors inhibiting a nuclear renaissance.
First there is the laborious and time consuming licensing and regulatory process to approve new nuclear power plant construction that adds years and billions of dollars to the cost of a nuclear power even before the first concrete is poured. It is unknown at this time whether President Obama will embrace measures to streamline this process.
The problem of nuclear waste still exists. President Obama has closed the proposed nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a favor to Harry Reid and has killed a Bush era plan to reprocess nuclear waste to create fuel. A commission is going to be established to investigate alternatives for dealing with nuclear waste.
The political strategy behind President Obama's embrace of nuclear power is a risky one. Obama runs the risk of alienating his liberal base, many of whom are die hard opponents of nuclear power. The nuclear power carrot may not be enough to attract support for Cap and Trade, because of the draconian costs it imposes on fossil fuels such as coal and oil.
But the new push for nuclear power represents a positive step toward energy independence, unusual as it is coming from a left wing Presidency.
Source: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy to Boost Climate Bill, Dina Cappiello and Matthew Daly, AP, January 31st, 2010
Published by Mark Whittington
Mark R. Whittington is a writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo, Dark Sanction, and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington... View profile
- Developing Nuclear Power as Alternative EnergyMany researchers feel that developing nuclear power, harnessing the power of the atom in fission reactions, is the most important alternative energy resource that is available to us, due to the fact of the incredible...
- The U.S. Will Need 35 More Nuclear Power Plants in the Next 18 YearsThe United states will need to build some 35 more nuclear power plants in the next 18 years to meet energy plans and reduce polluction.
- Are New Nuclear Power Plants a Good Idea?As humans, we seem to easily forget the past, nuclear power plants are an example. Looking at the past can help us see the future.
- Nuclear Power Rises to the OccasionAccording to the Nuclear Energy Institute, American nuclear power plants operated at an average daily capacity factor of better than 98% over the first 14 days of August.
Barack Obama Outraises John McCain in JuneDemocratic Candidate for President Barack Obama outraised John McCain in June and has, as of the end of May 2008, even outraised the Republican candidate for President in tradit...
- Nuclear Power in America
- Relative Dangers of Nuclear Power
- 34 New Nuclear Power Plants Could Go Online in the Next Decade
- Nuclear Power Industry and Upcoming US Election
- Why Nuclear Power Plants Are Not a Threat in America
- Future Tech: The Future of Nuclear Power Primer
- Are the Nuclear Power Plants in Your Area Vulnerable?
13 Comments
Post a CommentCongratulations! This article has been featured on the main Science category page.
Glen is a wonderful fellow and he uses that phrase to great effect, but actually it is a gag from the sixties and is itself pretty funny. "They told me that if I voted for Barry Goldwater we would have a half-million boys fighting in an Asian land war seven thousand miles away. And they were right.
More like air kisses it, Mark.
The nuclear power industry shouldn't endorse this proposal. It is a pawn in the cap 'n trade legislation and if it is so bundled, the overall price of electricity will skyrocket, even with nukes.
So look at the economics. The first consquence will be a big jump in electricity and energy prices. That will cause a continued bad economy and long-term depressed demand for electricity.
Without a growth in demand for electricity, why build new nukes?
It is a lose-lose deal.
Obama is for spending money in targeted districts. Most of these dollars will end up lining the pockets of environmental impact consultants and lawyers, and in the end, the NRC and state regulatory commissions will be hopelessly bogged down -- all by strategy and design.
No chance there will be more nuclear plants (or more nuke wattage generated) at the end of the Obama Administration than at the beginning.
That's the Obama embrace. A kiss of death to the nuclear industry.
President Obama said he was for "safe, clean nuclear power"; which means, nuclear power will never be safe enough or clean enough. Stop falling for his rhetorical tricks. He has no intention of actually promoting nuclear energy because he, like the rest of the left, has no desire to solve the "crisis" formerly known as "global warming". This "crisis" must go on into perpetuity so the left can use it as a cudgel to force through their Bolshevik schemes.
The President cancels Yucca and will not allow reprocessing so what will the new nuclear plants do with their nuclear waste. Nice way to embrace Nuclear power and shut it down at the same time. A president should lead not play politics.
Why does government's answer to everything involve more spending? Rhetorical question, I know. Billions in loan guarantees will probably never be approved by this Congress; and even if they are, the taxpayers will end up footing the bill. Instead, why don't we try reducing the overzealous regulatory burden that makes these plants need the guarantees? That will REDUCE government spending and get the plants online faster.
It makes a good sound bite, betcha nothing gets done. Watch what he does, not what he says..
Obama declared support for clean and safe nuclear energy. Easy to say when one is certain it will never be clean and safe, and one knows anti-nuke groups are ready to continue that fight.
Also note that for a quarter century the Federal Government has been collecting fees from the nuclear utilities, i.e. you the customer, for the disposal of spent fuel. That nearly $1 billion a year goes into the General Fund. Less than 10% has been spent, the rest nicely offsets the deficit. Petty cash in these days of trillion dollar deficits, I'll admit, but still a nice flow of cash from you the customer, in the form of 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt hour, into the Federal coffers.