The Candidates on Nuclear Power

  • The two presidential candidates square off on their views about nuclear power (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:

John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to take climate change, and our role in creating it,
seriously. When asked during the second presidential debate about their plans to stem climate
change during their first two years in office, McCain offered ‘straight talk’.

“What’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power.”

More nuclear power is the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s energy policy. He’s told audiences
about the power of nuclear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions.”

And he says the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. make a big difference.

“These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent to nearly all the
emissions of all the cars we drive in America.”

John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, has focused more on renewable energy sources – wind, solar, and
on energy efficiency. But he says he’s not opposed to nuclear power.

“I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

Senator Obama doesn’t have any plans to build new nuclear power plants. Obama doesn’t think
nuclear is he best option. It’s expensive. And he insists its operation and waste disposal must be
safe.

Senator McCain sees Obama’s use of ‘safe’ as a code word.

“Senator Obama will tell you, as the extreme environmentalists do, that it has to be safe. Look
we’ve sailed navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We
can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, senator Obama, no problem.”

But safety and radioactive nuclear waste are still unsettled issues for many people.

Andrew Hoffman is professor of sustainable business at the University of Michigan. If the country
is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he says it has to consider nuclear power.
But Hoffman says the issue of radioactive waste has to be resolved.

“And I think this is an area that the government has to step in. We have nuclear waste being
stored at facilities all over the country. That’s just not a smart way to handle this.”

The economics of nuclear are also uncertain. Lots of power companies lost their shirts back in
the 1970s, building nuclear plants.

Travis Miller is a stock analyst with the firm Morningstar.

“The financing costs are extreme. There is quite a bit of risk building new nuclear plants. They
take many years to build, cost billions of dollars to build, and without some kind of backing, I think
there are
Plenty of people in the utility industry who still remember those days when they did get in trouble
with these very expensive, risky project.”

Senator McCain says government subsidies should help build new nuclear power plants. But
Andy Hoffman at the University of Michigan says people and investors will still have concerns.

“The government can just sort of announce, we’re going to support nuclear, but there are other
things that have to come into play to make investments attractive to investors so that they’ll want
to do it.”

Hoffman says the government will have to persuade the American people nuclear power offers
more benefits than problems.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Dirt on the Coal Supply

  • This coal fired power plant sits at the corner of the SIU campus in Carbondale, Illinois. It has sulfur scrubbers and other technology that allow it to burn Illinois coal. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Presidential candidates John McCain
and Barack Obama are trying to sell us on a
clean energy future. And they’ve got a laundry
list of ideas, including conservation, solar
and wind power, and safer nuclear energy.
But they both want to tweak an old reliable
fuel, too. That would be American coal.
Shawn Allee looks at why McCain
and Obama are gung-ho on coal:

Transcript

Presidential candidates John McCain
and Barack Obama are trying to sell us on a
clean energy future. And they’ve got a laundry
list of ideas, including conservation, solar
and wind power, and safer nuclear energy.
But they both want to tweak an old reliable
fuel, too. That would be American coal.
Shawn Allee looks at why McCain
and Obama are gung-ho on coal:

One reason McCain and Obama tout coal is they’re convinced we have plenty of it.

And they even agree on how to make that point.

McCain first.

McCain: “Our coal reserves are larger than Saudi Arabia’s supply of oil.”

Obama: “We’re the Saudi Arabia of coal, we got more coal than just about
everybody else.”

The Saudi Arabia of Coal.

That’s a sexy political metaphor – it sounds like coal’s just waiting to be scooped up.

Where do politicians get this idea?

“It is really based on data published by the Energy Information Administration.”

That’s Mike Mellish. He crunches coal projection numbers for that agency.

Politicians cite a government figure that we have 250 years worth of coal.

Mellish calls that a very rough estimate. Mellish says we get that number by estimating
how much coal we can get out of the ground economically.

Then, analysts compare that to how much we burn in factories and power plants right
now.

“So that’s really the basis of that statement of 250 years.”

Mellish says, if we use more coal, we’d literally burn through the supply faster.

There are critics who pounce on the idea we have plenty of coal. One of them’s Richard
Heinberg.

Heinberg studies energy for the Post-Carbon Institute, a green think tank. He says
politicians should not expect cheap coal for centuries.

“It assumes we can continue extracting this stuff out of the ground at constant rates
until, one day, it all just runs out.”

Heinberg says America does have lots of coal, but the amount under the ground isn’t the
only thing that counts.

“We tend to get the cheap, easy stuff first, then the production peaks and tails off
afterward.”

Heinberg predicts companies will have to invest money to keep finding new coal, and
that will raise coal prices – not in centuries – but in a few decades.

And Heinbergs says there’s another reason Obama and McCain shouldn’t have so much
faith in coal.

Coal plants put loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that makes the global
warming problem worse.

Both candidates want new technologies to put coal’s carbon emissions in the ground.

“But there are a lot of questions as to whether this is really going to work. The cost
of capturing all that carbon dioxide and moving it around and burying it will be
enormous and they will add to the cost of electricity we can make with coal.”

For Heinberg all this talk about the Saudi Arabia of coal, and that 250 year figure, it’s all
a big bet – and it could have a high cost if we’re wrong.

“If we’re going on the assumption that there’s plenty of coal out there for many
decades to come at current prices and we build infrastructure accordingly and then
a couple of decades from now, suddenly coal becomes much more expensive and
scarce we will have gotten ourselves in a very difficult place, sort of like we’d done
with oil.”

A lot of energy experts are more upbeat on coal than Heinberg.

They admit it’s not clear how much coal we have, but it’s a heck of a lot, and we know
how to get it.

They say they don’t blame Obama and McCain for giving clean coal a chance. It’s just
that we should have started testing it a decade ago.

Hmm, a decade ago?

Politicians don’t like to say we’ve missed the mark by a decade.

It’s no wonder we haven’t heard that on the campaign trail.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Lcv Releases 2008 Election Guide

  • The 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide "takes a critical look at candidates' plans for dealing with global climate change." (Image courtesy of the LCV)

An environmental group has come out with an online voter guide for the
presidential primaries. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

An environmental group has come out with an online voter guide for the
presidential primaries. Rebecca Williams reports:


The League of Conservation Voters released its Voter Guide to show how
the candidates stack up. They consider the candidates’ voting records
and their plans to tackle the big issues. Everything from Superfund
clean-up to energy. But especially global warming:


David Sandretti is with the League. He says all of the Democratic
candidates have aggressive plans for controlling greenhouse gasses. He
says Senator John McCain comes out way ahead among the Republican
candidates:


“He has a plan, he has supported a plan, he’s been working on this for
years. And his Republican rivals just simply don’t have that kind of
record.”


Sandretti admits candidates without a federal or state voting record
are hard to compare to candidates with a long Congressional record.
But his group considers their records as mayors or governors.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Republicans Push Green Platform

Some republicans are fighting to restore the issues of
conservation and environmental protection to the party’s platform. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… some party
members say republican leadership has too often abandoned
environmentalism:

Transcript

Some republicans are fighting to restore the issues of conservation and
environmental protection to the party’s platform. Some party members say republican
leadership has too often abandoned environmentalism. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Republicans often note with pride that it was a republican president –
Theodore Roosevelt – who championed conservation and preservation. Teddy
Roosevelt pushed for laws to protect Yellowstone Park and to conserve timber
resources.


During this year’s race for president, the top two republican candidates
often invoke the name of Theodore Roosevelt. Here’s John McCain at a news
conference in New Hampshire.


“Teddy Roosevelt was the guy responsible for the national park
system in America… ”


And George W. Bush in a speech found on his website.


“The legacy of Theodore Roosevelt is an America that has made
significant progress in protecting our environment… ”


But, some in the Republican Party say the party’s leadership has neglected
that legacy, among them is Theodore Roosevelt – the fourth. Roosevelt says
it’s impossible to know exactly what his great grandfather would have
thought about his name being bandied about by today’s politician.


“On the one hand, I think he’d be very proud because he clearly
has become a symbol for enlightened, progressive environmental leadershipand he’d be

very proud of that. On the other hand, he believed very clearly
in the idea of being forthright and one of the things that you will see
today in the Congressional leadership and sometimes in Washington, people
who are anything but environmentalists trying to clothe themselves in a
cloak of green and he’d be the first one stripping that false cloak off
them.”


Roosevelt is a republican and active in supporting environmentalism. He is
the chairman of the league of conservation voters. Each year the group
issues scorecards that track politician’s votes on the environment.
Roosevelt says he knows republican politicians who fight for the
environment. But he says too often republican leadership – particularly
Congressional leadership – fails to support sound environmental laws.


“And as a Republican, what just drives me stark raving mad is
when we pursue dumb politics that gets you unelected and bad public policy
at the same time. There’s just no justification for that.”


Roosevelt is not alone. Other republicans make the same complaint. In fact,
in 1995, a new group was formed, calling itself Republicans for Environmental
Protection. It’s grown to three thousand members in forty-seven states. Martha Marks
is the group’s president.


“We believe that the Republican Party has just made up its mind that
this is just not an issue that Republicans care about or should care about
and they’re willing to cede that to the Democrats. We think that’s an
absolutely idiotic position to take given the fact that something like
eighty-percent of the American people routinely say they consider themselves
environmentalists.”


Marks says she’s not sure how the conservative wing of the Republican Party
came to take what she considers to be anti-environmental positions. She says
environmental protection and careful use of natural resources is more
conservative than what she calls squandering for short-term profit.


“We believe that conservation is conservative. It is fundamentally
conservative to be a conservationist. It is not conservative to squander our
resources.”


But one political observer says getting the conservative members of the
Republican leadership to completely redefine their environmental positions
might be asking too much. Alan Lichtman is a professor of history at
American University and the author of books about presidential politics.


“To the extent the Republicans might want to debate the environment, it would have more to do, I

think, with the broader picture of
how we go about enforcing environmentalism. That is, do we rely on the
regulatory approach or do we move more toward a compact with business,
cooperation, and voluntary compliance. And they might want to take on the
broader issue of the economic impact.”


But the group Republicans for Environmental Protection wants to push the
debate further. In 1996, the group was too new and too small to affect any
changes in the national convention party platform. Marks says this time
around the group has met with several staffers and leaders from the
Republican National Committee. Marks says the group has more political clout
now…


“They definitely know we’re out here. They actually wish we would
sit down and shut up. But we are not doing so and we are going to be very
insistent.”


In recent years, the group has been recruiting like-minded republicans,
including people in other conservation organizations, such as Theodore
Roosevelt the fourth.

Roosevelt says he has some political advice for the candidates who are
campaigning across the country. He says the candidates invoking his
great-grandfather’s name should follow a similar path.


“Move toward the center and recognize that this is an issue that
is important to eighty-percent of the American people and do so in a way that
reflects a strong commitment and support clean air, support clean water,
work on having a good public lands policy.”


Roosevelt says his fellow republicans should remember when Richard Nixon won
in a landslide in 1972, he had supported the legislation for clean air and
water. The environmental protection was established during his
administration. Roosevelt says it’s not that Nixon was an environmentalist…
but he was a wise politician.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

REPUBLICANS PUSH GREEN PLATFORM (Shorter Version)

A movement inside the Republican Party is working to make the
G-O-P more green. One group is hoping to influence the party’s platform
at this year’s convention. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham reports:

Transcript

A movement inside the Republican Party is working to make the GOP more
green. One group is hoping to influence the party’s platform at this year’s
convention. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports…


The group, republicans for environmental protection says the party has ceded
the issue of environmental protection to the democrats and it wants to
change that. Martha marks is the group’s president


“We think that’s an absolutely idiotic position to take given the
fact that something like 80-percent of the American people routinely say
they consider themselves environmentalists.”


Marks says that’s bad politics… On top of bad policy…


“There is a use-it-all-up, squander it for the short-term profit and
let the future take care of itself as it can. We think that’s a
fundamentally non-conservative position; it’s an idiotic position. And we’re
trying to return our party to a more basic, bedrock conservative position
which we think is pro-conservation”


Marks says the group is working with the GOP national committee. It hopes
to unveil a more environmentally friendly platform at this year’s republican
convention.