
The progressive Senators tasked with guiding a climate change bill through the back-logged Senate say they're ready to grease the legislative wheels with nuclear power. Speaking at the Progressive Media Summit this afternoon, Senators said it was time to embrace the atom as the key to comprehensive climate change legislation this year.
"I happen to be one of the Senators who's concerned about waste," Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said. "But most progressives in the Senate believe nuclear power is part of the solution at this time."
Boxer was joined on the dais by Senators Bingaman (NM), Ben Cardin (MD) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).
Boxer has struggled to pass a climate change bill this year against mounting resistance from conservatives who are still debating whether climate change actually exists. As chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works committee, Boxer has faced down one of the Senate's most striden climate change critics, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), as she has tried to lead efforts to pass a bill this year.
Boxer said that she's still hoping a bill will pass, and she praised President Obama's efforts to bring one to a vote. Climate change was a signature issue of Obama's 2008 campaign, though critics have said it's one of those to fall by the wayside as health care reform has eaten up most of his first year in office.
"Is he doing enough to get Republican votes on a climate change bill?" Boxer said, in response to a question from the audience. "I'll say he's working very hard behind the scenes."
Obama's environmental proposals include the construction of new nuclear power plants for the first time in decades, which Obama and nuclear proponents say are the best short-term way to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel-burning power generation.
Conservatives have long been in favor of new nuclear plants. Now it seems that the Senate's left wing -- once the home to the strongest critics of nuclear power -- is on board with Obama's plan.
"If we don't expand nuclear power, there are going to be more coal plants and more oil plants," Cardin said. "Nuclear power has been accepted as part of the solution [to climate change] among progressives."
Indie Pro
March 10, 2010 6:11 PM
Wow. "Senate Progressives" are alot like ConservaDems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 10, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to Indie Pro
They often are when it comes to financial interests.
However, in this case, I think they and Obama are right -- nuclear power is preferable to oil, gas or coal-powered plants. France provides over 70% of its power from nuclear plants and it helps them avoid spending so much on imported oil and it pollutes less.
I think we also should initiate a government research effort on the scale of the Manhattan project to create fusion energy --which has practically limitless fuel - hydrogen -- and would create only water vapor as a byproduct, or so I've read.
And to alphaliberal: One of the bigger expenses and reasons nuclear plants haven't been built in recent decades is because anti-nuclear groups have been so successful in resisting them tooth and nail, and have helped drive up costs so much, that utilities can make better and surer profits by building coal and oil plants. A carbon tax would help change that economic reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 10, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to rwc
And it cuts off money financing the terrorists to bomb us. We should go as much nuke as possible and cut-off importated oil as much as possible. They can drink their oil for food for all I care. Screw em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
March 10, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to rwc
Yeh.
You know what the problem is with Nuclear power?
It's that the facilities are run by corporations. Corporations who have a clear mandate to put "increased quarterly profits" at the very top of their priority list.
Don't get me wrong, I am a stock holder who LOVES increased quarterly profits ... just not when that will sway decisions that cut corners on materials, procedures, security and over working/underpaying employees ... with the result being millions of American people, and their businesses haveing to be displaced for 200 years.
You don't think a US Corporation would risk massive economic catastrophe in order to secure increased quarterly profit?
Have you payed attention to anything that has happened on Wallstreet the last 5 years or so? To heck with the country, these major corporations were not even afraid to risk the overnight failure of their very own companies if it means the just might boost profits.
Nuclear power is only dangerous because it is built and maintained by human beings and then relies on them having continual, non-stop, good judgment... for ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 9:58 AM in reply to justaJ0e
And yet the worst nuclear accident in history, the worst by several orders of magnitude, occurred in in the U.S.S.R.
Incentives and opportunities to fuck up on a catastrophic scale are not dependent on whether the plant is a public or a private enterprise. Cronyism, corruption, venality, stupidity, and the simple deterioriation of vigilence into complacence are as much a feature of socialist systems as they are of ours.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 10, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
And to hell with the environmental costs of nukes not to mention the financial bottomless pit that nukes are. What a stupid move. I guess you can always count on the Democrats to fuck it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to oleeb
Spoken like a fucking retard who knows nothing about nuclear energy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 10, 2010 7:18 PM in reply to FreeRider
And you the mighty asshole on every subject are an expert in this area I suppose? Fuck you. I've no doubt I have forgetten more about nuclear power than a nitwit like you will every be able to comprehend. You're a worthless, ill mannered pissant and a mindless one at that. I wish I knew where you lived you punk. You wouldn't have such faux courage under those circumstances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to oleeb
My, my, my! The prick who put the ass in asshole gets outraged at the lack of civility!
Big man wants to know where I live? Why? Your parole officer won't let you leave the state because of that kiddy porn conviction!
Tell you what: Tell me where YOU live and I'll kick your snakebit ass. I dare you. Post your name and address right here and I'll be there on Saturday.
You weak-kneed pussy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emears
March 10, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
This is where a sharp person would enter the address of someone who owes him money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 11, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to oleeb
It'll be fun watching nuclear power become the second biggest progressive "whatever" that this administration will be selling.
and the usual suspects aruond here are all too ready to buy and sell I see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Or, you know, possibly we came to the conclusion that more nuclear power was preferable to more coal plants our own, after a reasoned thought process, before we'd even fucking heard of Barack Obama.
Yes, concievably, we reasoned it out all by ourselves, several years ago, influenced, perhaps by the large number of mainsteam, and even radical, environementalists who were also capable of doing a reasoned risk analysis based on new information and who had concluded that without more nuclear we were inevitably going to burn more coal and that was bad.
Maybe all of us did a reasoned risk analysis and decided that global warming was a vastly greater risk than nuclear power before we ever even knew what this interesting guy who had given a great speech at the 2004 convention, but about whom we knew very little else, thought about the topic.
Maybe we reasoned it all out that way as the result of having a fundementally pragmatic worldview. Possibly, after years of observation of our politics and society, we had come to the conclusion that ideology should define desired outcomes rather than the policy by which outcomes are are achieved. Maybe our years of watching ever-more rigid ideologues fuck up the country in ever more dire ways convinced us that people who think ideology must dictate policy seem to invariably end up insisting that whatever outcome occurs as a result of their ideologically determined policy was necessarily good solely because it was the result of an ideologically driven policy--no matter how crappy the outcome really was.
Maybe we concluded that having all of our opinions dictated by our ideological belief system like some robotic Stalinist or mindless dogmatic medieval cleric was idiotic and destructive before we ever heard of Barack Obama.
Indeed, it is even possible that many of us formed a great many opinions in that fashion, opinions and then, when this candidate came out of nowhere saying things that were very much in line with what we'd been thinking for years, we supported him because we shared his views and continue to support him because his views and policies are in line with the ones we had had for years.
Maybe that's how it happened, and maybe that's why self-described "progressives" who smugly dismiss us as cultists piss us off to the point of distraction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 11, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
sure you did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Yeah, actually, I did. This editorial was what started me rethinking the issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 11, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
ah, the industry PR guy from Greenspirit Strategies. Right up your and Obama's alley. I'm not shocked. Kinda funny actually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 11, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to oleeb
I think the Obama aadministration is starting to look like a very successfull conservative adminsitration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 10, 2010 6:13 PM
If you're going to have nuclear power you have to have reprocessing of some kind. Proposing to store that stuff safely for a million years when no civilization has yet lasted more than a few thousand years seems rather over-confident.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
March 10, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I remember years and years ago hearing they were just going to dump the waste on the moon. Wonder what that would do to the cheese.
I haven't kept up on the technology, but have been told it's "completely safe" now. I'm not quite as confident as "they" are. How can we know how long their new-fangled safety features will hold out after years of use? I've seen transformers explode, refinery fires and a solar panel ripped from its base because of a microburst. I'm having a hard time imagining a nuclear accident in the same terms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
March 10, 2010 6:13 PM
Nuclear power is a humongous money suck. It will reduce our ability to do more with energy efficiency, renewable energy and other climate solutions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
March 10, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
A humongous money suck??? But the president of Pacific Gas & Electric said, when promoting the Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, that the electricity produced there would be "too cheap to meter." And now, some 25 years later, Diablo proudly produces some of the most expensive electricity in the U.S.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brillobreaks
March 10, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
OUR nuclear power system is a huge money suck, because every single plant is a one-off affair, with virtually nothing shared between the plants and their designs. Hell, many were originally designed to produce whatever the military needed at the time, with their power generation, efficiency, and costs a secondary concern.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 10, 2010 6:33 PM
Climate, shlimate. For once we can take the example of France and recycle most of the waste. There are even small modular self contained reactors, and reactors that don't use uranium. Try to keep up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 10, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to shooter242
jeez, shooter, the very first time I've agreed with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 10, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to rwc
though I'm pretty sure you don't agree with me on a big gov't research effort or the carbon tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 10, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to rwc
And you'd be right. Research is always good but cutting environmental red tape would be the best thing Government could do. If Detroit were smart, they'd forget about making the city farmland, and volunteer for an expedited nuclear megaproject. Bunches of cheap power is honey for industry bees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
March 10, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to shooter242
But you agree on the big research part? That could provide a huge step forward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 10, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to shooter242
Oh, my gosh. I agree with shooter as well. We should copy the french system in its entirety and implement it here. A few breeder reactors would get rid of the waste problem. I never understood why we did not build a couple of breeder reactors. It really makes no sense. The argument against them was the by product of plutonium, which is used to make nukes. Soooooo what do we do? We make the plutonium from straight uranium processing and have tons of waste. Sounds to me like some kind of pay off to pols from the nuke industry to create the waste problem and also process uranium for pultonium. Otherwise it makes no sense.
By the way, Hell is going to freeze over. A repuke praises the traitorous french. Amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problematic
March 11, 2010 8:30 AM in reply to Michael A
Amen. My biggest problem with the left's obsession with making Nuclear power go away is that they keep trying to judge it in isolation from what we are doing now. Sure there's a danger of accidents where many could die, but not much history of them happening except for Chernobyl, which is a special case. Yes, there is waste, but the French have show that this is easily dealt with or at least greatly reduced. However, these arguments ignore the huge elephant in the room. Fossil fuels kill millions every year from cancer and lung disease, are destroying our environment, and reduce our national security. Compared to them, nuclear power plants are the cuddly kitten of energy.
As for the plutonium from the breeders? Congress is currently debating a program to produce more for commercial and science applications. Without this for example, the US deep space exploration program will grind to a halt in a decade. If we're going to need the plutonium anyway, how about we get some power that doesn't wreck the planet and kill the weak with fumes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Michael A
I asked a Rickover-trained nuclear engineer that very question once. The answer was astonishing.
The only reason we don't do it because we don't want other countries to do it because it's an easy (or easier) pathway to the acquisition of weapon grade plutonium. We didn't want to be anymore hypocritical than we already were in discouraging proliferation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 11, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Well, that is just stupid. How can we be so advanced, have stealth fighters and such and be that gd stupid. We are trying to do all this sh*t and spend billions and billions to store waste when we could get rid of it in two seconds with breeders. It's just f*cking stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to Michael A
Yeah, that was pretty much exactly my response. "Politics? We don't do it because of politics? And even worse, beause of diplomatic concerns?" I may have even spat on the ground.
My engineer friend was unmoved. Navy-trained nuclear engineers (I've known a few) have interesting views. They're supporters of nuclear energy, but they're also really scared of fissile material.
Guess that's exactly how you want them to feel, if you're training them, come to think of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 10, 2010 6:41 PM
.. And Obama favors them too. I feel a flip flop coming on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chigger
March 10, 2010 8:22 PM
Any state that uses nuclear power should have to eat it's own waste.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brillobreaks
March 10, 2010 9:30 PM in reply to chigger
Sure. No more trips out west to those lovely wilderness areas or national parks though. And I think we'll just keep all the water from the Colorado and Mississippi rivers to ourselves, just for good measure.
Or, ya know, we could act as one country and ship waste to a centralized facilty that makes more sense than storing it next to NYC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
teabagger
March 10, 2010 9:32 PM
What exactly is a progressive senator?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
couser
March 10, 2010 9:42 PM
Perhaps someone will ask the President and these progressive senators 'where, after after all the decommissioned nuclear weapons have been reprocessed into viable nuclear power plant fuel, where is the viable, affordable, raw uranium ore for nuclear fuel going to be found?' Fuel, that a number of other countries, in better financial shape than we, are anxious to purchase. The Chinese have twenty-two nuclear power plants the boards, with some fuel agreements already in place. EI vs EO...peak oil, peak uranium.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brillobreaks
March 10, 2010 10:05 PM in reply to couser
The more uranium we use, the longer we put peak oil off. The longer we put both those things off, the longer we have to develop green alternatives to the point where they begin to eclipse the old sources in cost and efficiency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Problematic
March 11, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to couser
This is not the argument to use. If there's no way to get the uranium, then no one will build a plant. That's the aspect of capitalism I like...it's smart that way. However, there's no shortage of people building plants world-wide, which means that it's viable economically for now. It is a non-renewable fuel, that's true, but we really don't have a practical renewable fuel that can handle the full load 24 hr a day yet. By 2050 we should know if the ITER fusion reactor (or one of the other designs) works and we may have a better solar energy production technology/night time storage technology. Nukes by us time to get there and kill fewer people with airborne waste and global climate change. It's the smart choice along with huge investment in renewable energy development.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
March 11, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to Problematic
Not really non-renewable if you're willing to do fast breeder plants.
And if they ever manage to get the issues with molten sodium reactors worked out, all that waste everybody is worried about becomes fuel without reprocessing or breeders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
March 11, 2010 9:19 AM
I believe in it too and I'm glad the Progressives for once are being reasonable.
I believe in science and in using what we know. Just cause there are problems with a technology doesn't mean we should abandon it when it has such potential. And we're perfectly capable of finding solutions to the problems - they are not insurmountable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CJ
March 11, 2010 11:58 AM
I hate to see Dems caving on this issue too. No private investor would dare invest in nuclear power without government subsidies and guarantees. Yet the "limited government" GOP is pressing for exactly that.
At the same time, transportation and storage of nuclear waste is still an unresolved risk and moving forward without knowing the solutions or the cost of the solutions is asinine.
Dems need to change the narrative on this issue -- not cave to Republican/Media bullying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?