42
Dems need to consider nuclear energy
Will Marshall
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: Hillary Clinton is going to be the headliner tonight at the Democratic National Convention. She and the other speakers taking the podium can be expected to hammer the Republicans on the economy. While the convention's on we've asked Democratic policy junkies to tell us about an issue they think the party's neglecting. Today, commentator Will Marshall says Democrats are short one plank in their energy platform.
Will Marshall: Party platforms aren't exactly beach reading. But they do tee-up the critical choices voters will face in this fall's presidential election.
The Democrats, for instance, devote big chunks of their platform to energy security and climate change. They rightly blast the Bush-Cheney policies that have turned a blind eye to science and made our country more dependent than ever on fossil fuels. And they spell out a smart, clean energy alternative.
But there's a missing element in the party's platform, and that's any discussion of the future of nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear power doesn't rate a single mention in 57 pages.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in a document that calls man-made climate change the greatest threat to our planet. If that's true -- and most scientists believe it is -- shouldn't we be expanding nuclear energy, instead of ignoring it?
Nuclear energy has a huge advantage over coal. It's climate friendly. It doesn't pump any carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere. And it generates loads of power -- almost 20 percent of America's electricity needs.
Nuclear energy is no panacea. It's expensive and generates a lot of waste we haven't figured out how to get rid of yet. And Democrats are absolutely right that our country needs to invest big-time in clean and renewable fuels. But in the near term, there just isn't going to be enough solar, wind, hydro or geothermal power to keep the lights on in our offices and factories and heat our homes in the winter.
If we don't expand nuclear energy, we'll have to turn to coal and gas to meet America's growing appetite for electricity. That's an inconvenient truth for environmentalists whose hostility to nuclear power hasn't changed since the Three Mile Island incident back in 1979.
Other countries aren't so superstitious. China has plans to build dozens of new nuclear plants. And France already gets 80 percent of its electricity from atomic energy.
It's time for U.S. progressives and Democrats to break the taboo on nuclear energy. What better way to show we're serious about protecting our planet?
RYSSDAL: Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. That's a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.
Pages
"Nucular" energy — come on! That's how our president Bush pronounces it. Will Marshall should know better. More, he fails to address the issue of nuclear — that's NUCLEAR — waste. Sure France relies heavily on such energy, but simply dumps its highly radioactive waste in where? The ocean. Out of sight, out of mind. It's the old settlement days philosophy of "The solution to pollution is dilution!"
Jimmy Carter mispronounced it too, but the more important point is that we don't need it. Google "Clean Energy Future" (select the ORNL link - there are others) and read the chart on page 5 of the Executive Summary. Then think about the implications of a y2k report which develops a strategy which eliminates all new carbon growth for 20 years at 12% less cost than doing nothing, and doesn't use any nuclear power (report mentions nothing about newcular power) when gasoline cost a buck, natural gas cost a third of today's price, and coal was half as expensive as it is now. This report is for people who like heavy lifting. The lite version is that we have enough efficiency to keep us on track to a permanent global warming solution for about two decades, by which time solar PV and solar thermal will be cheaper than new coal, which is already half the price of new nuclear power. The efficiency strategy will pump tens of billions of dollars into the economy every year, if we can get the fool factor out of the equation.
Perfect!
You chose a "progressive" to speak on a crucial top[ic and the guy cannot pronounce the work NUCLEAR correctly.
Why have a Bush-like idiot talk about nuke you lurrr energy if you purport to be a serious program?
Then you follow him with some nonsense about wrapping gifts in MONEY!!! What planet do you folks live on?
MANY people can't afford or buy adequate,healthful provisions/food, not to mention pay for gas or fuel for heating.
How insulting!
Dr.Davidson
Should a follow-up commentary be scripted, answers to the following questions would help to assess opinion:
1. Where would increased capacity be sited, waste stored, & how transported;
2. What's timeframe for approval, (NIMBY response) and construction;
3. What are total capital and operating costs and funding source;
4. How do answers compare to answers for all non-fossil alternatives?
5. How can a listener take this seriously when all she can hear is blah nuCUlar blah nuCUlar?
I was stunned to hear Will Marshall on your program discussing the lack of a nuclear energy policy in the Democratic Party Platform. Not so much because of the content but because of Mr. Marshall’s pronunciation of nuclear.
Just over four years ago Gregg and Evan Spiridellis made national news with their political satire “This Land†in which John Kerry’s character says to George W. Bush’s character, “You can’t say nuclear, that really scares me.â€
It got me so wound up I had to look it up online to see if it was suddenly acceptable to mispronounce this word. Dictionary.com says “…pronunciation can be seen as coming from a process of metathesis, in which the [l] and the [y] change places. The resulting pronunciation is reinforced by analogy with such words as molecular, particular, and muscular, and although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many.â€
I however remain baffled as to why someone with Mr. Marshall’s credentials would use this pronunciation.
In regards to the topic covered, I used to hold very similar beliefs to Mr. Marshall. I now feel that money spent on research, development and construction of new nuclear facilities would be better spent capitalizing on the rapid implementation of the myriad of new solar and other renewable technologies. New innovations and efficiencies in solar energy have been appearing at a breakneck pace over the last several years. We have technology and supply to use coal and gas as a stop-gap energy supply; we do not need to incur the investment to shoehorn nuclear into this role. If, on the other hand, Mr. Marshall believes that nuclear has a long term role in our nations energy policy rather than the stop-gap measure portrayed in the piece then I do think it deserves more consideration from the Democratic Party.
“nuclear – definitions from Dictionary.com†http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear (accessed August 8th, 2008)
Pages
