Are you in favor of expanding Nuclear Energy?
Edwards: NO
Clinton: Yes, Agnostic {don't know}, Maybe
Obama: "we should explore it"
Al Gore: ????
On July 23, 2007, CNN and YouTube partnered to sponsor the first Democratic primary debate of the 2008 election cycle. Questions were asked by citizens from around the country by uploading personal videos to the YouTube website.
YouTube Debate: Nuclear Power?
http://www.youtube.com/...
----
Edwards:
... I do not favor Nuclear Power. We haven't built a Nuclear Power Plant in decades, in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is that it is extremely costly; it takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the Nuclear waste.
Obama:
I actually think we should explore Nuclear Power as part of the Energy mix.
...
Clinton:
... I'm agnostic about Nuclear Power. John is right -- until we figure out what we're going to go about the waste and the cost, it is very hard to see Nuclear as a part of our future -- but that is where American technology comes in. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost, if we think that Nuclear should be a part of the solution.
-----------
A brief summary:
Are you in favor of expanding Nuclear Energy?
Edwards: NO
Clinton: Agnostic {don't know}, Maybe if ...
Obama: "we should explore it"
Hillary Clinton was more definitive on Nuclear Energy, back in Feb 2007
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) responds to a question about the possibilities for nuclear energy at campaign rally in Columbia, SC, February 18, 2007
[to hear Clinton for yourself follow either link:]
http://www.youtube.com/...
----
Transcript of comments delivered at a campaign stop in South Carolina
Clinton: I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution. I think we've gotta do a better job at figuring out how we're going to deal with the waste. You know, because in a post 9/11 world we've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants.
Ah, but I, I don't have any preconceived opposition. I wanta be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can--because obviously it's a tremendous source of energy. We get about twenty percent of our energy from nuclear power in our country. A lot of people don't realize that. and other countries, like France, get, you know, much much more.
So we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emmissions into the air. But we gotta make sure it's done as safely as possible. We're going to count on people like your husband to help us get the answers.
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire....
-----------
Add a "has to be" -- er Yes to Hillary's scorecard:
Clinton: Yes, Agnostic {don't know}, Maybe if ...
More Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy
msnbc firstread
October 09, 2007
Obama also refused to commit to a ban against using nuclear power, when asked by a young voter. In his speech in Portsmouth yesterday on renewable energy, Obama said that development money should be spent on researching safe ways to use and dispose of nuclear power. He reiterated that stance today.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
-----------
Another strong "reiteration" of his previous stance from Obama (10/09/2007)
More John Edwards on Nuclear Energy
A constituent asks John Edwards whether he supports nuclear energy. Added: June 06, 2007
John Edwards addresses nuclear energy in Florence, SC
http://www.youtube.com/...
----
Question: Are you in favor of Nuclear Energy as a source of Clean Energy?
Edwards: I am not, I am not.
...
I think it's a bad idea for multiple reasons. Number 1 we don't have any safe way to deal with the watse that is produced from Nuclear Energy. And second we have immediate needs. Getting one of these Nuclear Power Plants on line, starting from scratch, which is what we've be doing, would take an enormous amount of time. ...
----
Another definitive NO from Edwards, even back in June.
Edwards: Making Sacrifices for the Environment
http://vids.myspace.com/...
Transcript:
Edwards: What I would do is Cap Carbon Emissions in America -- a National Cap. I would reduce our Carbon Emissions by a minimum of 80% by the year 2050. MINIMUM is Important -- because it MAY be necessary to do MORE than that! The more Scientific Information we get, the more severe the Problem appears to be. I'd bring that Cap down EVERY year. So that you keep reducing, keep reducing, keep reducing.
Beneath the Cap, for companies that want to send out Carbon Dioxide, I'd MAKE them buy a permit, to do it. THAT Money, the money from the permitting system, can be used to invest in Wind and Solar and cellulose-based Bio-fuels. And I'll point out another difference I have with some of the other Candidates -- I'm NOT for building more Nuclear Power Plants. I'm not satisfied that they ... Number 1, they are incredibly expensive. They take a long time to get on line. But I'm not satisfied that we have a safe way to dispose of waste.
I don't think that we should build ANY MORE coal fired power plants. Unless we have the ability to Capture the Carbon, which we DON'T today!
-------------
Another more recent definitive NO from Edwards to "building more Nuclear Power Plants." (9/27/2007)
AND drum roll .... What does Al Gore thinks about Nuclear
Power? Yeah or Nay?
Exhibit one:
Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming,
Senate hearing, he Environment and Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate March 21, 2007
Al Gore and the Nuclear Debate
Senator Isakson: Do you think nuclear energy and its generation of power is a part of the solution?
Mr. Gore: I think it’s likely to be a small part of it. I don’t think it will be a big part of the solution, Senator. I used to represent Oak Ridge, where we’re immune to the effects of radiation, so I used to be more enthusiastic about it. I’m more skeptical today for a lot of reasons, and the main one is cost. I’m assuming that we will somehow find an answer to the problem of long-term storage of waste. I think Yucca Mountain is deficient. I’m assuming that we will find an answer to the problem of errors by the operators of these reactors. I’ve been to Three Mile Island; I went to Chernobyl. And the whole industry is affected when there’s one of those. But I’m assuming those can be solved.
Now, for the eight years I was in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue was connected to a reactor program. And that’s a problem if the world wanted to make nuclear power the Option A for the whole world. It would make that problem worse. But the main problem I think is economics. The problem is these things [nuclear reactors] are expensive, they take a long time to build, and at present, they only come in one size—extra-large.... [Because of uncertainty in energy prices, utility managers are] reluctant to bet all their construction budget on very large increments that take a long time and have certain other fragilities associated with them.
In the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), I forget the precise numbers, but when I came to the Congress in the seventies, we had something like twenty-one reactors under construction. About nineteen of them had to be cancelled after the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. And you may get the same questions I used to get, Senator Alexander, about whether or not those partially completed cooling towers could be used for grain silos. People are still unhappy about having to pay for the ones that were not completed.
And so I think [nuclear energy will] play a small role in some areas, but I don’t think it’s going to be a big part of the solution
...
Mr. Gore: I do agree with you, that it needs to be a part of the debate—I just happen to think it’s going to be a smaller part. Take China, for example. We talked about it earlier. In their five-year plan right now, they’re projecting 55 new thousand-megawatt coal-fired generating plants every year [but] only three nuclear plants. Now they don’t have to worry about public opposition.... They’re looking at the same economics of the long lead construction and the cost and some of the uncertainties.
Now, there’s a new generation of reactors coming along that has a smaller increment. They may be more reliable and more standardized. We may get a solution to the waste issue.
So I mean, I’m not a reflexive opponent of nuclear—I just happen to think it’s only going to play a small role....
Mr. Gore: I think there’s a fourth, along with conservation and efficiency, coal and nuclear. I think the biggest source is widely-distributed small-scale generation in a Smart Grid or electronet.... There’s so much [venture-capital] money going into developing these technologies—the new-generation photovoltaics, the new-generation windmills, you couple that with the conservation and efficiency, new-generation enzymatic hydrolysis, producing on a small scale. I think that the old thinking—I’m not using that as a pejorative phrase—but I really and sincerely believe that the old way of thinking is big, centralized, whether it’s government or corporate management or whatever, big, centralized units where everything goes out from the center.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/...
-----
To watch Al's entire testimony at Senate hearing March 21, 2007, follow this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/...
-----
Al says he's "I’m more skeptical today for a lot of reasons"...
But Al could you be a little clearer please, do you think Nuclear Power is a good idea?
Exhibit two:
Question: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?
Answer: [Al Gore] I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.
Question: Won't, or shouldn't?
Answer: [Al Gore] Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.
We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.
http://www.grist.org/...
----
Thank you Al, that's a definite -- "serious problems" {aka, "Bad Idea"} on Nuclear Power, from the Statesman of our Generation.
-------------
SO To Recap:
Are you in favor of expanding Nuclear Energy ... Yeah or Nay?
Edwards: NO!
Clinton: Yes, Agnostic {don't know}, Maybe if ...
Obama: "we should explore it"
Al Gore: Skeptical, Doubtful, too many serious problems.
-------------
To learn for more on John Edwards' Environmental Credentials:
Friends of the Earth Action Endorses John Edwards:
Q. Senators Clinton and Obama have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs. Does FOE Action oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear power industry? What is your position on this bill?
A. Friends of the Earth wholeheartedly opposes the construction and development of nuclear power in the United States. Edwards is on the same page, here. He believes nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous, and too vulnerable to attack by our nation's enemies. New Hampshire, where FOE Action announced its endorsement of Edwards, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to the last-constructed nuclear power plant in the country, Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant places great environmental and health risks on the areas around it, and if constructing a nuclear power was a bad idea 30 years ago, it's an even worse idea now, particularly given the new realities we face in terms of national security. Nuclear power simply isn't worth it's risks, when accidents can have environmental implications that last for generations. And John Edwards is the only candidate to unambiguously say no to nuclear power.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/...
----
and some previous blogs on this subject:
Nuclear Power: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama - Where they stand
by TomP - Oct 10, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/...
----
John Edwards will be our First Green President
by TomP - Oct 25, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/...
----
John Edwards may NOT be Al Gore (Who is?), but Edwards knows that Al Gore is Right. He also knows Global Warming is the "moral test" of our Generation!
Afterall, John and Elizabeth have kids too, and they don't want to leave this mess of a broken world, for next generation to fix (it will be too late by then.) They believe it is time for Americans to be Patriotic again, but about something other than war!
Responsibility starts with us. The time is Now.
[Editorial Note: I respect all the Democratic Candidates, but only have so much time in a day to do research like this. If your Candidate was NOT listed here, and if you have references to your Candidate's views on Nuclear Power, PLEASE add those links to the Comments below. Thanks! ]