Nuclear will some some modest part to play in the future, it will essentially be a silver BB. As you stated, his position is consistent. But, if you see everything through a litmuspaper filter, then such lukewarm support could be interpreted that way, i.e. this sort of thinking is pretty binary in nature with-us or against-us. Some speeches will pass the with-us filter, and some won't. Subtlety and nuance are not a Republican strength.

"...invest some R&D into seeing whether we can store nuclear waste safely, or reuse it."

Give the nukers some cash to try to develop better, safer, waste recycling reactors.  But don't permit any of the old problematic plants.

Basically it is throwing some money their way to get them to go away.  If they can come up with somethjing that can compete safely with renewables, then and only then consider new permits, maybe 10 years down the road.

Good for you Barack!  Now counterpunch the mccainiacs with exposure and a call for closure of the Phil Gramm (mccain's economic advisor/lobbyist) enabled Enron loophole, that has doubled the price of oil.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It's always a surprise when I find myself in (partial) agreement with DrX. I think he's got it nailed. Obama is staying on the fence to retain support on the "green" side and appeal to the 60% or so of voters who think we need more nuclear power.

What will happen if he's elected? Who can guess? Will he line up with Harry Reid and Greenpeace or will he pay back the state of Illinois and Exelon who have supported him for so many years? Roll the dice.

This is a compromise acceptable to pro and anti-nuclear sides.  

Barack can do it, yes he can.  Bring even vicious enemies together, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Existing Nuclear power plants should continue to operate
We should spend Federal dollars on Nuclear R&D
We shouldn't spend Federal dollars on new Nuclear  plant finance until they figure out a way to deal with the waste.

Seems consistent to me.

Consistent except that some of us think the waste issue is a resolved non-issue and others think the waste issue will have no resolution regardless of the approach and technology proposed.

If nuclear proponents can't admit waste, safety, and leaks are a problem, why would we trust the industry to fix these obvious problems?

In that case, I am for shuttering the entire nuclear industry.

In the other case, which I believe is probably true, there is no cost effective way to deal with the waste, safety, and leak issues, then shutter them even quicker.

What I am saying is, if the industry admits its  mistakes we will fund an attempt to fix them.  Otherwise go the way of coal.  Extinction.

That's the deal, take it or leave it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog