Reply #22: Obama's statement in Oregon this weekend on nuclear power: [View All]

[depakid]

Asked by an audience member whether he would favor more nuclear power plants, Obama said: "My position is not to say 'No nuclear ever.' My position has been if you can show me a way to store nuclear waste or recycle it in a way that is safe . . . then I would be happy to consider it as part of an overall energy mix."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1210474514111150.xml&coll=7

Here's a statement from his 2004 Senate campaign:

As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/05/senator-obama-climate-change-air.html

I reckon that's a pretty reasonable statement in light of America's tremendous (and exceptionally wasteful) energy appetite.

Edwards Statement is probably what you recalled from this debate:

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

As was mentioned, it is curious that some of the more rabid anti-nuke folks seem to have put the issue on the back burner, so to speak -as they're also among some of the more ardent Obama supporters.