Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

[Bluestar]

Source: New York Times

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Barack Obama supports nuclear energy development

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4359482#4360503">More Pigwidgeon fun!

As I said, I do too, and many people on the left do now.

My concern is how they deal with the nuclear industry. It has generally been on its good behavior for quite some time, and we ought to make sure it stays that way (or improves).

--p!

[David Zephyr]

2. Here's Hillary speaking on videotape in support of nuclear power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZqtrvDIVs

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Ah, yes ... "Hillary does it, too!"

However, I already made that point.

And, supporting nuclear energy doesn't make a candidate "bad". It makes certain partisans hypocrites, though. (No, that's not a swipe at you. It's a swipe at the Obama supporters who are also anti-nuclear, AND assume Obama is, too.)

--p!

[raincity_calling]

3. Why do you support nuclear power?

I presume one would support nuclear power as a means for slowing global warming. But what about the waste? Contaminated nuclear waste is forever.

[Wizard777]

4. I f oil is any indication. Eventually we will find uses for these waste products.

We found a use for a waste product of kerosene production. We call it gasoline. We now fully understand that's not forever.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I can't answer it in a one-liner ...

But just for a start, nuclear waste is certainly NOT forever. The most common kind of spent nuclear fuel "cools off" to background radiation levels in a couple hundred years. It's a risk for a while, but it is not too difficult to store, and we may be able to reprocess it cheaply in a few years -- or possibly even render it completely inert.

Also worth considering is that burning coal releases several tens of TONS of uranium and thorium each year from a typical 1000 MWe power generating plant. There are thousands of such plants all around the world. They represent an enormous low-level radioactive threat, far greater than the long-range threat of Chernobyl's waste. Yet no one really gives them a second thought.

This is a large area of debate. We often discuss it on the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115">Environment and Energy forum. You may want to check it out.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

7. What about it?

Welcome to DU, and with appologies for flippancy:


This is coal waste...


...This is nuclear waste. Guess which one causes the most damage.

Is it perfect? Hell no.
Are there problems? Hell yes.
But, it provides baseload power with an overall impact bettered only wind - better than PV, better than hydro, and a damn site better than any fossil fuels. Here's the externalised costs, in euro-cents per KWh, of various sorts of electricity generation in Europe:



Not totally insane, really.

[bahrbearian]

11. I take it wind isn't competitive?

[Dead_Parrot]

13. It is, pricewise

But it's not terribly reliable. Some places like Norway or NZ have plenty of hydro to back it up (which can be switched on and off quite quickly) but without that, you tend to be down to gas-fired generation - better than coal, but it's still a fossil fuel and it still emits GHG's.

The other alternatives are building a grid robust enough to power, let's say, the whole Los Angeles area from wind in CO, or New York from OH; or building some sort of TWh energy storage systems. Not physically impossible, but we got anything like them yet and we're getting rather short on time...

[depakid]

8. "rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators"

A good example of what UNITY looks like....

[CONN]

9. Obama lied to voters...

From the NY Times story:
Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

Darn just when I was starting to lean towards this guy... Too bad the others dropped out so soon.

[CONN]

10. Is Obama on the take from Nuclear industry???

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president.

Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and also of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, has been an Obama donor.

Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon.



U.S. / POLITICS | February 3, 2008
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
By MIKE McINTIRE
An Illinois controversy pitting two important constituencies against each other put Barack Obama’s legislative skills to the test.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1202706000&en=9b90278942ace89a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[TacticalPeek]

12. Don't worry. The R's will never beat shit like this into the ground in the general.

:sarcasm:

K&R

[Gloria]

14. KICK!!! I guess this shows how Obama will work with Republicans--

by giving in!!!!! Along with our complicit Dems in Congres....

Why isn't this getting more play?? :sarcasm: