Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal Industries

Obama is tight with the nuclear power industry and coal. He has accepted $159,800 in contributions from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power-plant operator, for his presidential campaign as of late March 2007, and received notable support from Exelon in his previous political campaigns.

He wants FutureGen's "clean" coal-fired power plant in Illinois. The group doesn't count the energy used before and after the coal is burned. With net energy gain reduced by these processes, you're better off with wind and solar.


Plus he voted FOR Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act, a sweeping, oil-friendly energy bill that gave lots of presents to Bushes friend's in the oil industry. Environmentalist strong opposed it. Hillary voted AGAINST it.

He opposes the House-passed bill that would reform the 1872 Mining Law. That law lets companies mine public lands without paying royalties and doesn't hold them responsible for mine cleanup.

Looks like if Obama wins the presidency , the US will be replacing an oil president with a nuclear-power and coal president.

Tags: coal, Nuclear-power, obama (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

More substance glossed over by media hype

You make very good points.  People need to look at the real Obama, not the cardboard cut out version created by his campaign and hyped by the media.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-04 06:12AM | 0 recs
nuclear power has many good qualities

If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it's the one form of power that can be used in medium-term, if not immediately.

To have a kneejerk anti-nuclear power reaction is to be rather non-reality based in one's approach to energy and the environment.

Nuclear has negatives that should be considered, but it doesn't produce CO2 or sulfur emissions and isn't much less associated with wars than fossil fuels.

BTW, Illinois is the state most heavily invested in nuclear power, so Obama was sorta stuck advocating for a large, well-developed nuclear power industry.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-02-04 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: nuclear power has many good qualities

Nuclear certainly does have its negatives, but I agree with you.  It's hard being an environmentalist who is open to the idea of nuclear power.  The mining laws thing bothers me more.

As an environmentalist, I have to admit that I think Clinton would be better on the environment than Obama.  To me, it isn't just about global warming either.  There are serious issues with logging policy, wildfire control policy, controlling off-road vehicle use, combating sprawl, and investing in conservation etc.  I'm not sure that either candidate has a fire in his or her belly for these issues, Clinton maybe a hair more so than Obama.  But it really comes down to who gets the second- and third-tier appointments in places like the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency.  I won't even attempt to guess how this would shake out, but either one would be worlds better than Bush or McCain.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: nuclear power has many good qualities

And we should keep the pressure on Obama and western Democrats on the issue of private companies using public lands.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill Clinton didn't exactly prioritize the environment in his career. In fact, his lackluster performance on environmental issues was the reason he chose Al Gore as his running mate.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-02-04 08:38AM | 0 recs
NUCLEAR is a disaster

Radioactivity materials remain toxic for 250000 years.
Everything is touches becomes contaminated. Every fluid, glove, tool become radioactive waste...and there is no place to put any of this.

Second these are build by for profit companies that want exemption from legal liability. No one will insure a nuclear plant because they are so dangerous.

Third, nuclear energy concentrates power into the hands of a few mega producers. We need more distributed sources of power generation owned by relatively smaller companies otherwise we are lorded over in the same dynamic with what the oil companies do today.

by demwords 2008-02-04 08:32AM | 0 recs
and oil isn't a disaster?

Radiation isn't quite the bogeyman you make it out to be.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-02-04 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: and oil isn't a disaster?

what do you know about breeder reactors?  I have some very vague memory of them as being a gigantic no-no, but they produce virtually no radioactive waste correct?  Is there any movement toward looking at these again?

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: and oil isn't a disaster?

Just the opposite...they produce more than goes into them in the first place. Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear engineer, cancelled this country's efforts in developing them back in the 70's.

by demwords 2008-02-04 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: and oil isn't a disaster?

See the Wikipedia entry on breeder reactors.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-02-04 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: and oil isn't a disaster?

uh, I'll wait until I get home.  Thanks.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 12:37PM | 0 recs
Clinton Very Cozy with Sock Puppets

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

by IowaCubs 2008-02-04 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

what makes you say that?  I'm honestly curious.  (see my comment above).  My gut tells me Hillary is better on the environment, but this isn't based on much.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

hmm, I was hoping to hear something good about Clinton rather than something bad about Obama.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

His forth largest contributor is Exelon Energy. He is the only dem that say about nuke energy " I wouldn't rule it out."

by demwords 2008-02-04 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

I understand people's concerns about nuclear power.  But really, if we're serious about fighting climate change, there probably is a pretty substantial future for nuclear power.  I recall seeing a NOVA special on alternative energy which showed that you'd have to cover something like a few percent of the entire Earth's surface with wind farms in order to generate enough power to stop using fossil fuels (predominantly coal) for electricity.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of mandate saying that x% of new home roof area must be solar panel.  This will never ever happen with either Clinton or Obama, but I can dream can't I?

But, as I said to Undies Sided above, I'd rather hear something positive about Clinton's environmental record rather than something negative about Obama's.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

Believe it or not the conservative government in Germany has mandated Solar. It part of the reason that US solar companies are doing so well, they selling tons of this stuff to Germany. Not a real sunny place, and they are already seeing the benefits.

Imagine, LA, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston and etc with a serious solar effort.

by demwords 2008-02-04 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

yeah, but Germany's "conservative" is far different from the U.S. "conservative".  Can you imagine an actual mandate on solar at the federal level in this country?  I'd love to see it, but I'm not going to have the audacity to hope just yet.

by the mollusk 2008-02-04 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal

It's easier when Exxon, Chevron, Shell and others are not domiciled in your county.

by demwords 2008-02-04 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal In

Very cozy? I think you're overstating things a LOT. And Billary has taken plenty of money from the nuclear energy industry.

Obama worked for PIRG back in the day, about as enviro/community focused as you get. Billary worked for Wal-Mart.

Nice try. They'll both be better than Bush. Don't get desperate, relax and let it happen. Obama's your guy, you just gotta chill.

by Demeric 2008-02-04 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Very Cozy with Nuclear-power and Coal In

Obama has taken 198 donations from Exelon according to Open Secrets. According to Taylor Marsh on the Huffington Post, Obama has accepted at least $227,000 dollars from Exelon Energy employees, all the way from the VP down to the accountants.  He's accepting tons of money from energy companies and has lied about his energy bona fides to crowds in Iowa and who knows where else.  Please keep digging into this.  If elected, he's going to owe a LOT to the coal and nuclear industries.

by shellius 2008-03-10 04:05AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads