Will Obama Consider Nuclear in Energy Policy?
When I first read up on Obama Energy Secretary nominee Steven Chu’s work in alternative energy field, I felt sure that we’d be seeing a real focus on them in an Obama administration. I was sure that a Chu appointment pointed for a decidedly liberal energy policy dominated by alternatives.
Now I’m not as sure.
John Henke at The Next Right notes that Chu has previously given some support for nuclear energy.
He quotes a 2005 interview with UC Berkeley’s Bonnie Azab Powell:
Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?
Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early ’70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. [...]
And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.
Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good – what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.
He also notes that Chu is a signatory to a Department of Energy Labs report, “A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy.” This is all well and good, but personal views on something are no indication of government policy.
The trouble is that Obama has barely touched on the nuclear energy issue. Sure, he’s mentioned “supporting it” a couple times during debates, but has failed to bring it up one way or another. I don’t think he’s been actively against it, though I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong. But he’s not been publicly for it, either, which could indicate a liberal bent toward energy policy.
Then again, we have been surprised. A lot of his appointments so far have been moderates, or at least less liberal than feared by some conservatives. Was Obama simply pandering to the liberal base when discussing energy? If so, he did it well. I sure felt his preference toward alternatives during the campaign more strongly than many other issues.
There is of course the caveat that Chu wants to see nuclear waste become more manageable, and this may indicate his true position: develop it if waste won’t be such a problem. In any case, Chu has indicated some support for nuclear, which could be a good thing if Chu can get Obama’s ear on the issue.
(H/T Andrew Sullivan)
Chuck Steiner doesn’t know what he’s talking about..
As he says, cooling towers release water vaper (H20) and not CO2. Remember, it’s carbon footprint, not H20 footprint.
Other options: it’s a far cry from dirty coal and not ready for prime-time solar. Wind power sounds great. I have no problem with adding more windmills and converting all the cell towers over for the same purpose.
Chuck, wake up to the rest of the civilized world and see how we’ve foolishly fallen behind the french, japanese and most of western europe in the use of nuclear energy because of old head-in-the-sand activists like yourself. We’re a poorly educated country and you’re not improving our future.
Chuck Steiner’s comment was just advertising/spam for a company and/or investment scam and has been deleted.