Rivals differ sharply on nuclear power

Contrary to what Democrats may think, there is more to John McCain’s energy program than “drill, baby, drill.” And contrary to what McCain has been saying on the campaign trail, where he proposes the construction of 45 nuclear plants by 2030, Barack Obama does not “oppose the use of nuclear power.”

Both men endorse nuclear energy, although to differing degrees, as part of their strategy to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil.

While McCain includes the building of nuclear reactors among his preferred options to obtain more energy, Obama assigns a higher priority to developing renewable sources like solar, wind and bio-fuels and increasing efficiency in the consumption of existing sources.

“I think that nuclear power should be in the mix when it comes to energy,” Obama said in June in Jacksonville, Fla., but added, “I don’t think it’s our optimal energy source, because we haven’t figured out how to store the waste safely or recycle the waste.”

McCain says on his campaign Web site that “nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit” to expanding its use.

He also argues that it is “critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our own country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times.”

Because nuclear energy is virtually carbon neutral, some environmentalists who opposed its use are more open to it.

Elgie Holstein, an adviser to Obama on energy issues, accused the McCain campaign of misrepresenting Obama’s position on nuclear power.

“Some specific proposals that Sen. McCain has made are troubling,” Holstein said, because of the problems of storage and reprocessing, and the issue of non-proliferation of nuclear fuel.

Obama is from Illinois, which has more nuclear reactors than any other state, and during the Democratic primary season drew fire from rivals for donations he had received from the company that operates those reactors. In his acceptance speech in Denver, Obama vowed that as president would “find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”

McCain restated his support for nuclear power in the first two presidential debates, and criticized Obama. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, did not respond to phone calls and e-mail messages over a one month period requesting an interview with one of McCain’s energy advisers to elaborate on McCain’s stance.

France as role model

On the campaign trail, McCain has repeatedly cited France as a model for the development of nuclear power in the United States. In France, 59 nuclear power plants generate nearly 80 percent of the country’s electricity, helping to reduce carbon emissions and producing a surplus that has made France one of the largest net electricity exporters in the world.

In France, the government controls both the construction of nuclear power plants and the generation and distribution of electricity.

“Putting aside the question of whether it is advisable to have an electricity system dominated by one mode of generation, it is a little odd for him to point to the heavily subsidized French case and say we should be emulating it,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said of McCain. “It would take a massive shift in government policy to proceed in the French direction, and it would be antithetical to the United States and how it operates, since it would be a quasi-socialist system.”

In campaign speeches, McCain also estimates that his program to build nuclear reactors would “provide 700,000 jobs for American workers.”

Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and the co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a pro-nuclear group, estimated that each reactor would cost up to $8 billion and would generate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 800 permanent jobs once in operation.

Asked to provide a ballpark figure on employment if all 45 reactors were to be built, Moore, responded, “225,000 good union jobs that you can support a family on.”

Trade groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute favor plans similar to McCain’s proposal to build 45 nuclear reactors, but some energy experts say that would require billions of dollars in new subsidies and be an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money, no matter how many jobs were generated.

Those experts seem to prefer Obama’s promise to invest $150 billion in clean-energy projects over 10 years, the bulk of which would probably be directed toward non-nuclear energy sources.