The Nuclear Option: McCain v. Obama on Nuclear Power
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 09.23.08
photo: jag9889
There are few issues that divide environmentalists as much as nuclear power. Though generating electricity through nuclear doesn’t create any carbon emissions directly, there is always the nagging issue of waste disposal, and securing the sites against natural disaster or terrorist attack. Then there is the issue with cost of new nuclear plants , which according to a Wall Street Journal report a few months back are significantly higher than expected. I could go on and on. A quick look at the comments in past TreeHugger posts on nuclear power shows the differences in opinion quite clearly.
Neither Candidate Opposes Nuclear
That said, neither John McCain or Barack Obama oppose nuclear power. The differences in their viewpoints (as with many of this year’s hot button environmental issues) aren’t on the background facts of the situation, but on emphasis. McCain focuses on a radical expansion of nuclear power, while Obama focuses on it more as part of diversified energy portfolio, and perhaps more importantly in the context of making sure storage of nuclear waste is done in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
This is how they stack up:
photo: McCain-Palin 2008
John McCain on Nuclear Power
There’s no denying that John McCain’s energy policy looks very kindly on nuclear power, seeing it as a solution to creating greater energy independence in the United States, and tackling climate change. In a debate speech in Dearborn, Michigan on Oct 9th of last year McCain stated this conjunction of events in this way:Nuclear Power Will Help Combat Climate Change, Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
[We need to] stop the contamination of our atmosphere. Climate change is real & is taking place. We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that. And it's also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation's national security. (On the Issues)
In terms of how it should be expanded in the US, the official McCain campaign position on nuclear power is this:
45 New Nuclear Plants by 2030
John McCain will put his administration on track to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
When the League of Conservation Voters asked John McCain whether he supported federal subsidies for continued development of nuclear power, he responded:
Government Should Support Research, Market Determines Winners and Losers
I strongly support greater reliance on nuclear power. I believe that if we are to be serious about addressing global warming, improving air quality, and achieving national energy security we must also be serious about ensuring that nuclear energy is permitted to play a more significant role in our energy mix. This, of course, requires that we work together to overcome the political obstacles that impede our ability to provide for the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. I believe in American innovation, know how, and resolve, and I firmly believe that we are up to this challenge in a way that will greatly benefit the environment.I believe that within the context of strong public health, safety, and environmental standards, the market should determine economic winners and losers, not politically-driven subsidies from Washington. I have spent many years in the nation’s service fighting against unnecessary and wasteful spending, and will carry on that charge as President.
The federal government retains an appropriate role in supporting basic research for all potential energy sources and the obligation to overcome barriers to the development and deployment of advantageous technologies, such as nuclear, where such obstacles arise from political uncertainty rather than economics. (LCV)
In regards to what to do with nuclear waste (the perennial bugbear of nuclear power, beyond anything else...), at a campaign stop in Keene, New Hampshire last year, John McCain has this to say,
We Should Revisit Yucca Mountain For Waste Storage
My preference is that we store it. I always though that Yucca Mountain was the right place to do it. It’s not a problem of technology. It’s a problem of political will. We have now the worst of all worlds, because we have nuclear waste sites around every nuclear power plant in America, which provides us with the greatest challenge to our security. So, I would try and resolve it and I would try to go back and revisit the Yucca Mountain issue, but I would do everything in my power to resolve it. (Brattleboro Reformer)
While in the previous posts I’ve done comparing these two presidential candidates’ viewpoints I’ve included how their running mates may influence policy, but in the case of Sarah Palin she hasn’t weighed in heavily on nuclear power. However, she is clearly a supporter of expanding its use, mirroring the official campaign position on several occassions.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Are You at Risk From Wind Turbine Syndrome?
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
Obviously the Obama plan is more comprehensive, more thoughtful, and shows a far deeper understanding of the problem.
The question is, can he motivate enough people to overcome their fear of change? Fear is all John McCain has to sell, but he sells it well.
Nader doesn't want nuclear, coal, natural gas, or oil IN ANY FORM.
Worth noting that the two US states most dependent on oil for electricity generation are Florida, which gets a lot from Venezuela, and Hawaii. So, given that we are decades from a fleet of vehicles that are largely electricity dependent, any statement that equates reducing foreign oil dependency and nuclear power can only be referencing those two states. Otherwise oil burning for electricity generation is a tiny slice of the total energy pie.
Second and separate point: uranium production is extremely water and energy intensive. Same may be said for all the concrete and exotic metals needed to built and run a reactor. The front end C02 emissions burden of nuclear plant fabrication takes far more time to reach "payback" from the C02 emissions forgone during operation than would any other type of generation plant. Some studies put it at close to the design life, others close to half.
Obama does show a deeper understanding of this sissue, because as we all know the most secure energy supply doesn't rely on a single source, let alone a single non-renewable (though in this case, abundant and domestically available) commodity.
That said, if McCain places greater emphasis on nuclear than Obama and he only wants 45 new plants by 2030, what are we worried about? That is what would be needed just for nuclear to maintain its current market share, once you factor in decommissioning of older plants and projected demand growth. Maybe not even. If he said let's build 200 nuclear plants in 20 years, then that would qualify as a renaissance of nuclear power.
For comparison, there are just over 100 nuclear power plants operating in the US today, and between 400 and 450 worldwide.
The only issue I have with this article is that its misleading to treat a watt of nuclear energy and a watt of wind energy as if the only difference between them is financial costs and nuclear waste.
While I'm not opposed to wind, we do need a source of low-carbon baseline energy, and wind can't offer us that. In fact, the only way we can realistically get said energy any time soon is from from unproven dry hot rock geothermal, some yet-to-be invented energy storage system, a currently non-existent carbon sequestration system, or nuclear power. For all its serious faults, nuclear power is currently the only game in town for low carbon, baseline energy.
So in terms of the baseline electricity issue, we have three realistic choices: (1) we can push conservation and try to replace coal (and then natural gas) power plants with nuclear power; (2) we can push conservation while we cross our fingers and hope that something better than nuclear turns up soon, or (3) we can accept global warming and try to plan for it. Personally I'm partial to option (1); its probably the only issue that McBush and I agree on.
I think 'Mitch' hits the issue on the head. Nuclear is not as wonderful as we might like it to be, but it is the best baseload source we have at the moment. Conservation + intelligent expansion of Nuclear is the best thing we've got until we can level the output peaks and troughs of wind and solar power production.
But really, why are we talking about this? The biggest issue is the infrastructure that will get the power (nuclear or not) from the site of generation to the site of use.
Obama said some promising things about spending money 'on infrastructure' last night (I optimistically assume he means rail, power, and liquid/solid waste management), and I wholeheartedly agree with his goals on this front.
At the same time, I have been impressed with some of McCain's statements: Ever think you'd hear a Republican presidential candidate say he wanted to get rid of sugar subsidies, or cut defense spending? How does he expect to get elected when he treats his constituency like that?
I hope there's more where that came from -- in both cases. I'm trying to maintain optimism about our possible Presidents and the potential future of this country.
Fourth Generation Nuclear reactors will have the ability to "eat" spent fuel producing (really clean and green) energy from older reactors (Generation 1 and 2), thus stripping the need for Yucca Mountain. Indeed, 4th Generation reactors will be able to produce energy from U-235 for 1 year and generate copious amounts of clean, green, energy while only generating 1 metric cube of waste. 1 metric cube of waste for a say 1600 Mega Watt plant is nothing when you compare that to the climate destructive nature of a 1600 Mega Watt coal fired plant spewing toxic sewage into the air. No, we have not built a 4th generation reactor, but France plans to by 2020:
http://www.eubusiness.com/Rd/france-nuclear.51/
In addition, Generation 4 reactors can be built with completely autonomous controls and have shutdown systems that rely on gravity to prevent instability. Gravity has never failed and neither will a Generation 4 reactor.
For more information on Generation 4 reators, please click on the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
I'd like to make the point that oil and gas are being used to heat many buildings, almost all of which could be converted to heat pumps if enough electricity were available. Renewable energy can play a role here, but nuclear energy will do the heavy lifting.
Also, a lot of large numbers are being thrown around about costs, but they aren't based on anything. In France and Japan nuclear plants are being built for between $2000 and $2500 per KW. Decommissioning and final disposition adds about 10%. That makes them cheaper than any renewable energy source.
There are some glaring issues here and it bothers me that people don't understand the topic well enough. Wind energy is the only thing that people should be conscerned with in my opinion. Doing the math shows huge returns to people where wind can be used. How would you like to pay a third as much for your energy bills at your homes and businesses? You should be able to with wind. How would you like to use unimaginable amounts of your drinking water on the same amount of energy? You would with nuclear. I think that the best way to get people on the path to wind and away from nuclear and fossil fuels is to show them in plain English just how much it costs to build the wind turbines and also the nuclear (which I hate as even being mentioned as an answer or crutch to the energy crisis). Eventually, with help from washington subsidies and trade ins and things like that, we should be able to wane off of gas power for our cars and home and businesses and get the charge from our wind turbines. Id love to see it.
Mccain smell like Suga Honey Iced Tea.....get where im comin frm
I work in the electrical and nuclear industry/utilities so I may not be objective but I can bring real data to this discussion.
The area I live in has alot of wind generation along with hydro and nuclear.
The cost from greatest to smallest for power is wind, nuclear then hydro. The utility I work with purchases wind for around $0.12 KWH, Nuke $0.03 KWH.
If maintenance and construction costs aren't reduced wind generation probably won't be a viable option for long unless people are willing to spend 4x more for electricity.
The only thing driving wind generation is hype, the economics don't exist.