Note to McCain: Uncommitted Ohio Voters Just Aren't Into Nuclear Power

If you don't watch the debates on CNN, you are really missing something. CNN has set up a dial group of uncommitted Ohio voters. At the bottom of the screen CNN then shows the graph of the reaction by men and women as they rate statements they like or don't like.

McCain seems to think his strong support of nuclear power is a big political winner for him, since he has brought it up three times in the first hour. But every time he talks about nuclear, he flatlines with both men and women. They simply are unenthused about nuclear power, which is no surprise.

At best, people consider nuclear power as Castor oil, something your parents made you take that is supposed to be good for you. At worst, people think it's a source of radioactivity they'd like to stay far away from.

Frankly, McCain has been flatlining for most of the debate, which I suspect post-debate audience polls will reflect.

Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Town Hall Debate from HuffPost bloggers

Comments

[PaulL2]

Sorry to disagree with most of you, but while I support Obama we need nuclear power, along with all the "green" initiatives. There are many horribly cloudy, damp places (like northern Ohio) where the choice for energy is stark -- coal or nuclear. I lived for years within the "10 mile emergency preparedness zone" of the Fermi nuclear plant in SE Michigan, and went to the state park beaches within view of Davis Bessie in NW Ohio. Everything I have read tells me that the new designs, which have been re-engineered and standardized, are safe. With proper training and maintenance, the Europeans, Japanese, and the US Navy have not had problems with reactors. WE CITIZENS MUST DEMAND AN OPEN AND RIGOROUS MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROGRAM. Another issue that is brought up is terrorism. I have often wondered -- why are the National Guard and the service Reserves not tasked (after drawdown from Iraq!) with the security of these plants, instead of using overpriced contractors? This would give the reservists something "real" to do for national security, maybe put a greater fear into would-be terrorists knowing that the guys doing the security are military, with live weapons, armed helicopters, etc. This is the type of enlightened use of nuclear power that an Obama administration should champion. While we do need all the "green" initiatives, we do not need an Al Gore Luddite approach.

[Otaku1031]

Something that Obama hasn't mentioned in his promotion of alternative energy technologies is the fact that there is a finite amount of petroleum on the planet. Eventually, it will be gone, or at least inaccessible. Since many people think "gasoline" when they hear "oil", the need for it in other industries is ignored. Plastics, medical instrumentation, drugs and lubricants are just a few areas where petroleum is currently indipensable. We can't afford to continue burning it as a fuel; it's too valuable and we don't yet have viable alternatives for the needs mentioned above. Bring this fact to light at the next debate, Senator Obama. Investment into alternative energy sources is needed immediately, and is a very real matter for our national security. I think many will be surprised at the scope of the oil issue, and that it goes far beyond that next tank of cheap gas.

[danod]

Frankly, I'm surprised that the Obama campaign is riding the "That One" comment as hard as they are; it must have happened before McCain's most shocking line of the night: "[Obama] will tell you he's for nuclear power, but it has to be safe...or disposable­...or something like that."

WTF??? That statement - by a presidential candidate - dismissing a serious concern shows a Homer Simpson level of understanding of nuclear power. This is literally radioactive material. The safety of its handling must be fully understood BEFORE it is handled. Why? Because the radioactive waste will be around longer than people have been on this earth. So we're not only creating dangerous materials that our children and grandchildren will need to handle safely, but that generations thousands of years from now will need to safely handle.
McCain focuses on the safety of using nuclear power. The problem is the storage: we have no guarantee that the safety precautions we create can be held in place for the thousands of years necessary for the radioactive waste to lose its radioactivity.

I would feel confident to serve on a nuclear-powered ship for several months/years, but I would never want to live near Yucca Mountain or any other place where the waste will be stored for thousands of years.

And I would never vote for a man that would dismiss someone else's stance on such a serious issue with "safe or disposable or something like that".

[Overd0g]

Unfortunately for the stupid public, it is the only answer that can sustain (and improve) our standard of living.

[lbrillante]

To propose building 45 nuclear power plantsand have no plans for how to deal with the nuclear waste is completely irresponsible. Does he plan to have one in every state in the country? He has no idea what the impact would be. Will he let them put a nuclear power plan in Arizona??

Other countries are encountering huge problems in dealing with their nuclear waste including France that gets touted as a positive example.

We need energy independence that does not put us on the path to self destruct.

Fortunately we are about to have President Obama and a democratic congress so I won't worry too much about this.

[athenasword]

He should perhaps do his homework on the recent issues at the Davis Besse nuclear plant in Ohio.

[mrblubitz]

You're right. Not only did the reactor head hatch just about corrode through from lax oversight, but the cost of electricity in the Toledo area is the highest in the state.

Isn't the owner of Davis Besse, First Energy, a major campaign contributor to the Regug party?

Another good example would be Three Mile Island, which is the same design and built by the same company.

[GotRights]

No insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant. (There's all insured by the taxpayers.­) That says something about how safe they are.

[clevelandchick]

Ask any Northeast Ohioan why they aren't that into nuclear power and they'll say "The Perry Nuclear Power Plant". A plant in bad shape that was closed for years and cost millions upon millions to fix, a cost the power companies passed onto the consumers.

Nuclear is not the answer, we don't have the time or the money to build those plants. They're expensive and take ten years to erect. We don't have the money to maintain them. We didn't have it when the economy was good....wh­at makes anyone think states have it now?

[Fishingmom4obama]

Ohio is also a farm state--lots of corn and soy grown around here. He would've been better off mentioning biofuels instead of nuclear power. But, of course, it would go into the "feed the world vs. energy independence" argument. THAT would've been a more enlightening discussion.

Nuclear energy is so 70s-80s, like the Cold War and missile shields.

[Asmodeus]

What I'm really waiting to see, is that little speech about nuclear power, and his clearly dismissive attitude toward the disposal problems with nuclear power ( he couldn't even finish the WORD disposal. ) up next to some footage of Mr Burns from the Simpsons Extolling the virtues of wonderful, clean, nuclear energy, then turning around and muttering something appropriately cynical, and disdaining of the masses. That's what I saw when he gave that answer, and if progressives are smart while the wound is still fresh, so will everyone else.

[kahalaman]

It's amazing that in the year 2008, nuclear power is being touted as a viable alternative when the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste has not at all been solved. John Edwards was one of the few candidates to reject new nuclear power plants completely and I admired him for for taking that position. Too bad Edwards made himself radioactive with bad judgement recently..­.

[deliriousgod]

I loved McCain's bizarre claim that nuclear energy was 'FREE'. I think that nuclear generation is the most expensive form of power generation. Its only recommendation is that it is carbon-free in operation. But there is a lot of carbon footprint from refining the necessary uranium fuels, and the true cost of disposing of the waste is unknown.

[BitterRoot]

It's probable that John McCain would experience difficulty changing the batteries in a flashlight, so what he has to say about nuclear or any other method of producing electricity cannot be seriously regarded.

FREE!?

The large number of nuclear plants shut down across the USA weren't closed because of a sudden epiphany on the part of their operators -- they were shut down because they were simply TOO EXPENSIVE to operate!

[feo]

That was the preposterous claim made in the '50s: Nuke power would be so cheap there would be no point attaching meters to houses.

[janeInCA]

How about energy from space? we have a space station can accomodate payloads to beam down to earth with energy from solar and others.

[RepugsOut08]

I think John McCain just saw a chance to tap into people's anger at the pump, and believes he can win votes by pushing all those energy sources that liberals fought against in the sixties and seventies. McCain is still fighting the culture wars from that period, and trying to paint Obama as some kind of anti-American hippy or something.
I mean, trying to link Obama to the 60s radical group the Weathermen? It looks like shoving offshore drilling and nuclear power down America's throat is his way of getting back at all the youth who partied at Woodstock while he was in a Viet Namese prison camp.
At this point, McCain has just ran out of ideas. He looked old and sometimes rambled tonight, and often he was rambling while discussing his favorite subject, foreign policy.
Obama just looks more presidential everytime we see him. Even the Republican pundits on CNN admitted that. We need a president who will promote alternative energy sources, and the American people, with all of the traditional energy sources becoming too expersive, are finally ready to accept that fact.

[feo]

If Joe Sixpack can afford a six pack, maybe he can still afford gasoline. Gallon for gallon, gasoline is a lot cheaper.

[RickO]

Nuclear power is the most expensive and toxic way to boil water, which is basically all it does. For the cost of a single nuclear plant, along with its enormous incremental operation and waste disposal costs, clean alternatives could easily exceed the output with non of the risks.

One example is geothermal. The earth is a thin layer of crust over a permanent molten core. You don't really have to go too deep to get to reach enough of a heat exchange to boil water . We drill miles deep for oil and a lot of it comes up very hot. Same technology. All we need to do is boil water to have an endless nearly-free source of electricity.

Solar is another example. Photo-voltaic panels are expensive but simple curved mirrors focusing infrared radiation on fluid piping is another easy way to boil water to spin a steam turbine.

[lostinNJ1]

Every time nuclear power is mentioned, I think of 2 things primarily: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I was a kid when 3 mile occured and I lived in PA (3 mile located in Harrisburg, PA). Scary stuff. I think many people may also remember these incidents.
I think McCain brought this up before ? last debate. And I wondered then if scientists had addressed the waste issue based on his extreme positive view on the whole issue. Based on other's posts this does not appear to be the case. I think waste disposal would be a huge issue if more plants are built.

[dansup]

nuclear power scares the crap out of me, it shouldn't be on the table as an option....­..so what if they use it in France, we have other resources, much safer ones, we can draw upon

[lemonyashes]

Cindy could invest all her money in a nuclear power plant to put in the back yard of 1 of their 7 homes and dump the waste in their other 7 yards; ergo problem solved.

[Deman]

I also grew up near Three Mile Island (TMI) and remember the panic during the meltdown.

I remember reading a Village Voice article about some of the issues with disposal. Number one being, it takes 10,000 years for the stuff to decompose - and there has never been a government, country, or even a language that's lasted that long. Recorded history doesn't go back that far! There's little chance that it will be contained. At some point, it's going to get loose.