The candidates had a short back and forth on energy policy. Obama mentioned while he wants to "make sure we're investing in energy ... to solve this problem," there "may be individual components we can't do" because of a tighter budget.
Then McCain talked up his own energy ideas: "We have to have offshore drilling and we have to have nuclear power." He then accused Obama of opposing nuclear energy. Well, Obama doesn't really oppose nuclear -- he's just not the cheerleader for it that McCain has been. He's said in the past that he thinks it should be part of the mix, but there are outstanding safety and waste disposal concerns.
McCain also said that "nuclear power is important not only in eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, but it's import for climate change" - marking the first time either candidate has mentioned climate change tonight.
One year after his election, Obama on verge of audaciously fulfilling his promise as the green FDR
Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
27 Sep 2008
Believing, as he does on every issue, that unregulated industry does a better job than government regulation can obtain.
Obama will insist that the problems be solved before more nukes are built. With experimental reactors under government regulation and scrutiny.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:49 am
27 Sep 2008
Banks won't loan the money since 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl. Three-Mile dumped $1 billion in 1979 money.
I haven't heard any figures for how much money the U.S. government would have to put it to kick-start the construction. I've a big hunch that's what the industry wants.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 4:52 am
27 Sep 2008
Permalink
Susan Kraemer Posted 7:01 am
27 Sep 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:23 am
27 Sep 2008
@Purple Ozone, @Susan Kraemer
New nuclear plants, if done smartly, will cost just about 1 to 1.5 billion dollars per GW. And the latest technology (called 4th generation nuclear power) is radically different from the 2nd generation plants that we have since the 1960s and 70s. The new technology is inherently safe and does not produce nuclear waste (it actually eats existing nuclear waste to produce electricity). No radioactive material will ever have to leave the power plant.
Try reading the book of Tom Blees, you will learn a very fascinating story. A short summary is provided on this website.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:58 am
27 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:43 pm
27 Sep 2008
We have less expensive and less dangerous ways to make all the power we need.
Right now we need to build as much wind generation as we can. We don't yet need to worry about storage until we get to a much higher percentage of wind in the mix.
We've got a new compressed air storage facility being built in the mid-west. That will serve as a lab for the additional ones we will need to build later.
Long before a new nuclear plant could be brought o line solar prices should have dropped to about where wind is now. Both should be half as much or less than new nuke.
Private money just won't finance new nuclear. And public resistance will probably prevent public moneys from being used.
We really should be spending some serious money on drill-down geothermal. If we can make drill-down work it would give us a 24/7 steady stream source that can be located close to point of use.
Permalink
Tom Blees Posted 11:03 am
30 Sep 2008
Tom Blees, author of
Prescription for the Planet.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Permalink