Obama's quotes on nuclear power:

jump to quote : 'So the only nuclear legislation that I've passed'  (3rd line)  [More than 3 weeks before the NYT pointed out the fact that Obama said he 'passed' legislation that didn't actually pass, Beyond Nuclear blogged about it: 'Obama and Clinton miss chance to kill nuclear subsidy', 1/08/2008]

jump to: Critics of Obama's position on nuclear power

2008 Democratic primary debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, January 15, 2008

Tim Russert: Senator Obama, a difference in this campaign: You voted for the energy bill in July of 2005; Senator Clinton voted against it.  That energy bill was described by numerous publications, quote, "The big winner: nuclear power." The secretary of energy said this would begin a nuclear renaissance.

We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in this country for 30 years. There are now 17 companies that are planning to build 29 plants based on many of the protections that were provided in that bill, and incentives for licensee construction operating cost. Did you realize, when you were voting for that energy bill, that it was going to create such a renaissance of nuclear power?

Obama: Well, the reason I voted for it was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy - solar, wind, biodiesel - that we had ever seen. And I think it is - we talked about this earlier - if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we’re going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.

Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us.   That's why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We're going to cap greenhouse gases. We're going to say to every polluter that’s sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "We’re going to charge you a dollar - we’re going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there." That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.  And if nuclear energy can’t meet the rigors of the marketplace - if it's not efficient and if we don’t solve those problems - then that's off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that's going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now.

Town hall meeting, Pahrump, Nevada, January 13, 2008

' "If somebody comes up with a clean coal emission strategy, then we should use it," the senator explained. "We have a lot of coal here. We could be the Saudi Arabia of coal, if it's clean to use it. And my attitude is the same when it comes to nuclear energy."  He also acknowledged the necessity of nuclear power plants.  "I don't think coal or nuclear are the best energy strategies over the long term," Obama added. "But let's be realistic. If we took all our nuclear plants off that table, nobody would have any energy. So we're going to have to transition."  As long as nuclear energy could be clean, the senator said, it was a viable option to consider.  "Nuclear is bad because we don't know how to store it," Obama said. "And it poses security hazards. If we solve those technical problems, if we had a failsafe way of storing the waste and we knew it was secure, why wouldn't we want nuclear?" '  - From Pahrump Valley Times +

Obama takes a question on nuclear energy at campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, on December 30, 2007

Question: "So, I really really like your campaign and I identify with almost everything within it and I'd really like to caucus for you but I'm still concerned about your stance on nuclear power, which I don't think that a lot of the voters present here, especially like the younger voters, know about and I'd like you to explain that a little bit and I know that you consider it one of your essential components of your alternative energy plan to mitigate greenhouse gases but I would like to know if you are truly comfortable with the safety of nuclear power and how big a part you wanted it to play in your alternative energy plan.  And I wonder if you being a senator from Illinois, where there is a heavy nuclear presence has influenced your decision."  

Barack Obama: "Good.  Well I think it is an excellent question and let me tell you that I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal and so I am not a nuclear energy proponent.  It is true that Illinois has the most nuclear power plants of any state in the country and that makes me that much more concerned about safety issues since I have a nine year old and a six year old daughter who live in that state.  So the only nuclear legislation that I've passed has been to make sure that the nuclear industry has to disclose whatever they admit anything that might be considered radioactive and share that with local and state communities.  I just did that last year.  So, my general view is is that until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe, that they have solved the storage problem - because I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain and just dumping storage in one state in Nevada particularly since there's a potentially a earthquake fault line there - until we solve those problems and the whole nuclear industry can show that they can produce clean, safe energy without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government, I don't think that's the best option.  I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel and strategies alternative fuels that not only can create clean energy but will also create jobs in rural communities and areas that have been hard hit throughout Iowa and throughout southern Illinois.  What I have said is this though: there is no perfect energy source.  Everything has some problems right now.  We haven't found it yet.  Now I trust in our ingenuity...What I've said is is that I am going to launch an Apollo project, a Manhattan project, where we invest billions of dollars in new energy, ideas and sources and the way we're going to do it is we're going set up a cap and trade system on power plants and industry.  Every bit of pollution and greenhouse gas that you emit we are going to charge you money for. That will generate funds and we will put that into research, development and assistance to alternative energies and creating clean technologies.  I have not ruled out nuclear as part of that package but only so far as it is clean and safe.  I have the same attitude with respect to coal.  My state has a lot of coal, but I actually voted against the Bush Clear Skies Initiative that would have reduced or weakened the Clean Air Act because I think it's important for us to give clean air and clean water to our kids. On the other hand, if we can figure a way to burn coal that is clean and does not emit greenhouse gases we should do it and so we should invest in the research to do it but we should not sacrifice the health of the planet or the health of our people for that.  That's I think the approach I want to take as President, emphasizing clean energy but also recognizing that there's no one single optimal solution and we've got to try everything to see what works."

Obama rally in Washington, Iowa, December 21, 2007

'... Questioner says "corporate system based on profits, not social conscience," ties it to nuclear power.  Obama: "Nuclear power is not working for us right now" because of waste disposal.  "I have not ruled out nuclear power ever, what I have said is we should not invest in nuclear power if we have storage and security problems."  "Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases... but we are not there (yet)."... ' Source - John Deeth

Obama answers questions from the Keene Sentinel Editorial Board (New Hampshire) on November 25, 2007

Guy MacMillan: "We've got a nuclear power plant fifteen miles from here.  It's one of the oldest in the country and it's by all accounts fallen apart.  One of its cooling towers collapsed recently.  But it has applied for a 20-year extension of its operating license and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not requiring that an independent safety assessment be made of this plant before they make a decision and they've always decided for the plant when they ask for these 20-year extensions or however long the extensions"

Barack Obama: "I would reverse that policy."

MacMillan: "Good. I heard you talk about your...you're probably the most I don't want to say pro-nuclear power but let's say understanding of nuclear's potential - of the Democratic candidates - and you've said that you'd like to see a safe and secure nuclear energy but I wonder have you been keeping up with the fact that we've got a lot of geriatric plants."

Barack Obama: "Absolutely, and look, the NRC is a moribund and...it's a moribund agency that needs to be revamped and it's become captive of the industries that it regulates and I think that's a problem.  It's not unique by the way to the nuclear industry but [...] Point number one: I would make sure that there was an independent study of the safety and how the plant is operated.  More broadly though, I think that the NRC is similar to the EPA is similar to the FCC is similar to the FDA.  We've got a whole bunch of federal agencies that over the last seven years have been filled with cronies, have lost their sense of mission.  It's true in the justice department, the civil rights division.  You have life-long civil servants who are the most experienced folks who ended up leaving.  Part of what I want to do as President is I want to make government cool again.  I say that only partly tongue-in-cheek.  I want to be able to attract a whole new generation of talent to go into the federal government and their charge will be make these agencies lean, mean, make them work, weed out stuff - bureaucracy - that is bloated and not performing a useful function. Let's restore this sense that government can get things done...[question and answer about Yucca Mtn]...Keep in mind, just to make sure that I'm on record in terms of my views on nuclear power: I would describe myself as agnostic on nuclear power in the sense I'm not somebody who says nuclear's off the table no matter what because there's no perfect energy source and given the importance of producing carbon emissions, nuclear should be in the mix if we can make it safe, we know how to store it, we can make sure that it's not vulnerable to terrorist attack, it's not enhancing proliferation.  There are a whole set of questions and they may not be solvable and if they're not solvable then I don't want to invest in it.  But if they are solvable, why not?  I don't think there's anything that we inevitably dislike about nuclear power.  We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and radiate us and kill us.  That's the problem. [laughing in room]."

2007 Democratic primary debate at the University of Nevada (Las Vegas), November 15, 2007

John Roberts:  I want to explore the energy issue for a moment here, because it's of particular importance to this state.  Senator Obama, the price of oil is flirting with $100-a-barrel- mark right now, making all the more urgent the need for alternate fuel sources.  You support nuclear energy as a part of the plan for the future, but there is an issue of what to do with the waste. You are opposed to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository about 90 miles from here.  Your state uses about -- gets about 48 percent of its power from nuclear compared to 20 percent for most other states, yet you are opposed to bringing nuclear waste from other states and keeping it in Illinois.  The question is, if not in your backyard, who's?

Obama:  Well, as I've said, I don't think it's fair to send it to Nevada... because we're producing it.  So what have to do is we've got to develop the storage capacity based on sound science. Now, laboratories like Argonne in my own home state are trying to develop ways to safely store nuclear waste without having to ship it across the country and put it in somebody else's backward.  But keep in mind that I don't think nuclear power is necessarily our best option.  It has to be part of our energy mix. We have a genuine crisis that has to be addressed. And as president, I intend to address it. And here's what we have to do.  We have to, first of all, cap greenhouse gases, because climate change is real and it's going to impact Nevada, and it's impacting the entire planet. That means that we're going to have to tell polluters: We're going to charge you money when you send pollution into the air that's creating climate change. That money we can then reinvest in solar, in wind, in biodiesel, in clean coal technology, and in superior nuclear technology.

Wolf Blitzer: All right, Senator, until there's some new technological breakthrough, as you would hope and all of us would hope, where do you send the waste?

Obama: Well, right now, it is on-site in many situations. And that is not the optimal situation, Wolf. But don't keep on assuming that we can't do something.  I mean, this is about the third time where you said, assuming we can't do it, what's our option?

Blitzer: Well, until we can...

Obama: But -- but -- but I'm running for president because I think we can do it.  I reject... I reject the notion that we can't meet our energy challenges...We can, if we've got bold leadership in the White House that is saying we are going to do something about climate change, we are going to develop renewable energy sources. That's what I intend to do as president...And we shouldn't, you know, be pessimistic about the future of America.

Blitzer: OK. Well, I'm optimistic.

Nuclear Energy Insight (published by Nuclear Energy Institute), November/December 2007 issue, survey of candidates on nuclear energy

Letter from Senator Obama to Senator Reid and Chairman Boxer opposing Yucca Mountain, October 30, 2007

"Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:...Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy.  But we cannot deny that nuclear power is – and likely will remain – an important source of electricity for many years to come.  How we deal with the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that has yet to be resolved.  As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors – more than any other state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel is an extremely important issue for my constituents...the time has come for the federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.  Among the possible alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage repositories.  The federal government should also redirect resources toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented..." +

Las Vegas Sun's survey on four Democratic candidates' positions on five national issues, article published on October 28, 2007

Question: All Democratic candidates oppose Yucca Mountain, but what’s your solution to solving the waste issue — and what’s your stance on nuclear power?

Obama's answer: Yucca is a bad idea. Part of what I want to do is not just look at storage options, but also look at what can we bring about through technologies. I would take $150 billion over 10 years, obtained from charging polluters, and devote most of that money to clean - energy initiatives and significant research and development into more effective, safer ways of storing nuclear waste. If we can solve the problem, nuclear should be part of our energy mix. If we can’t solve it, that will cap the degree to which we can use nuclear energy.

Londonderry, NH, town hall meeting -Mack's Apple Orchard, October 9, 2007 

Question from audience member: "I was at the World Conference against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs this summer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and met people who were actually there when the bombings happened and who survived these and the horrible atrocities that they went through.  In your speech, you talked about securing fissionable materials for weapons grade...now I want to know, because there's not much difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, in doing that, and talking about your green energy and clean energy.  I really want to know if you'll commit to not funding nuclear power because that is not a green energy."

Obama: "Well, I can't make that commitment and remember I – you know, I've always, you know, when you're a politician you're always tempted to get some applause, but on this one, on this one, I have to be more qualified. Big chunks of the country currently are getting nuclear – are getting electricity from nuclear power. And nuclear power has a host of problems that have not been solved. We haven't solved the storage situation effectively. We have not dealt with all of the security aspects of our nuclear power plants and nuclear power is very expensive. Construction of nuclear power plants is very expensive. But I can't say in an unqualified way that we can't develop, over time, technologies that deal with some of these problems and maintain nuclear power in the energy mix – peaceful uses for nuclear technology. And so what I've said is let's invest as part of the overall research and development that needs to take place – wind, solar, hydrogen, biodiesel, geothermal, all that stuff – that we shouldn't simply remove nuclear power from the equation. We should invest in new technologies to see if we can make them more effective, but there has got to be a high standard and a high threshold. If we don't deal with the safety and the storage issues then it's uneconomical and we go for a better option. But I'm not going to just rule it out as automatically being a dangerous option. Because I think it can be a reasonable option and there are a lot of European countries that use it and use it effectively, and use it cheaply, and have a pretty good track record in terms of safety."

Obama's speech titled 'Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future' in Portsmouth, NH, October 08, 2007

"We will also explore safer ways to use nuclear power, which right now accounts for more than 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. We should accelerate research into technologies that will allow for the safe, secure treatment of nuclear waste. As President, I'll continue the work I began in the Senate to ensure that all nuclear material is stored, secured and accounted for - both at home and around the world. There should be no short cuts or regulatory loopholes - period."

2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College, September 6, 2007

'Obama on the Record: An interview with Barack Obama about his presidential platform on energy and the environment' by Grist and Outside, July 30, 2007

Question: "As president, would you oppose subsidizing any technology that increases global warming -- even if it reduces our dependence on foreign oil?"

Answer: "As a general principle I would agree with that. I would not make huge investments or try to take technologies to scale that worsen the climate-change situation. But it may be appropriate for the federal government to make small investments in pilot projects to see if we can make dirty fuels cleaner. I think that with nuclear power, we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way, and if we can do that and deal with the some of the safely and security issues, [nuclear power] is something that we should look at. My general view is that we should experiment with all sorts of potential energy sources -- don't prejudge what works and what doesn't, but insist that we have very strict standards in terms of where we want to end up, and enforce those standards vigorously."

2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston, South Carolina, July 23, 2007

A: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. But we're going to have to try a series of different approaches.

"The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator.  The Illinois-based company also helped Obama's 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper's, '[Exelon] is Obama's fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.'"  (Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07042007.html)

[In late October 2006, Senator Obama's office issued a response to the 2006 Harper's article (titled 'Barack Obama Inc.'), asserting that Obama's "side of the story was not fairly presented."  The press release noted that Obama voted with 75 other Senators against the Sununu amendment because it would have eliminated loan guarantees to encourage emerging clean-energy technologies (in addition to nuclear energy).  The Harper's author, Ken Silverstein, quickly wrote a counter-response.  In February 2007, Silverstein talked more about Obama in his interview with NPR - audio.

The most recent tally of total contributions from Exelon executives and employees to Obama can be viewed at Opensecrets.org, courtesy of the Center for Responsive Politics, and equaled $194,750 in Oct. 2007.]

League of Conservation Voters 2008 candidate questionnaire, June 2007

Q: After five decades, more than $85 billion in U.S. federal grants and subsidies, and 100 commercial reactors deployed and operating in the U.S., nuclear power generation is a mature energy technology controlled by multi-billion dollar companies.  These companies are fully capable of privately financing new nuclear reactors whenever they can be economically constructed and operated with a suitable return on investment.  Do you favor continued federal government subsidies and tax breaks to these large energy companies, or should the government leave nuclear power to find its own way in the energy marketplace without further subsidies?

A: ...I believe future federal support for any technology must be carefully measured in the context of two key goals of energy security and environmental stewardship.  No technology offers a perfect answer, and no technology should be rejected outright...The gamut of power generation technologies -- coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal -- will continue to play major roles in our national energy mix for the rest of our lifetimes.  The debate is to what extent will each contribute.  Outright dismissal of any of these options is not a serious policy approach.   I do believe, however, that without greater investments in plant security and environmental safeguards, and a common-sense solution to the issue of spent fuel storage, the future for nuclear power remains uncertain. 

New York Sun article '2008 Candidates Show Affinity to Atomic Energy,' published on April 20, 2007

'Mr. Obama's camp gave a somewhat more reserved answer when asked about the Illinois senator's views on atomic energy. "Barack Obama feels we must address three key issues before ramping up nuclear power, including the public's right to know, security, and waste storage," a campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, said. "Nuclear power represents the majority of non-carbon generated electricity therefore making it unlikely that it will be taken off the table."'

Critics of Obama's position on nuclear power:

Ralph Nader

Friends of the Earth Action - press release 'Friends of the Earth Action Challenges Obama, Clinton on Seabrook Station,' 1/05/2008

Anti-nuclear activists, Tom Clements, Leslie Minerd, Elaine Cooper - their open letter about what happened in S.C. and regarding the Obama campaign's response

Beyond Nuclear -blogpost titled 'Obama and Clinton miss chance to kill nuclear subsidy', 1/08/2008

Nukefree

Community Blog at barackobama.com titled ' Nuclear Power? '