Politics Around the Nuclear Question

 

CNN’s Democratic climate change town hall meeting certainly was extraordinary—in that it ran for seven consecutive hours and some people evidently wagered their sanity watching it till nearly midnight on September 4th.  With climate change now a global buffet for opinions and the Democratic presidential hopefuls pouncing on it with sensational glee, the soap opera saga did at least yield insight into how America might look moving forward under a different president with regard to climate change—and specifically nuclear energy. A word which is nearly as polarizing as the political spectrum itself.

            In an effort to not mirror the doldrums of a seven hour telethon, we’ll stick to a couple highlights:

  • Only half the candidates even addressed the topic of nuclear energy
  • Corey Booker (D-NJ) and entrepreneur Andrew Yang both advocated nuclear energy as not only a major part of any solution to climate change, but also as a more efficient and reliable means of generating clean energy
  • Booker especially pushed the idea that America cannot afford to let other nations dictate the nuclear imprint on humanity, commenting: “As Americans, [we] must make the investments so that we lead humanity to the innovations, to the breakthroughs, to the jobs of the future”
  • Booker introduced a plan to allocate $20 billion towards the development of next-generation nuclear technology like Small Modular Reactors
  • Yang’s proposal calls for $50 billion towards building new reactors in the U.S. by 2027 (Only one reactor has come online in the last twenty years)
  • Bernie Sanders predictably outlawed nuclear energy in all forms, calling it a “False Solution”
  • Kamala Harris declined to fully condemn nuclear energy, instead choosing to make scant comments about proper nuclear waste disposal
  • Elizabeth Warren choose to orchestrate her argument against nuclear energy around her Native American cause, citing “Environmental Injustice” imposed on indigenous peoples by the development of nuclear power plants and waste disposal sites
  • Biden kept his position rather vague and spent his turn distancing himself from failed Obama-era climate policies, only mentioning the need for more R&D in the field

            What’s clear is that the majority of the Democratic Party is opposed to nuclear energy in America’s future.

            At Otek we sincerely hope that with more factual information, credible research, and honest introspection, America as whole can come to the logic that clean energy is simply not possible without nuclear energy. It just isn’t—and there’s bevy of scientists and leading experts strung around the planet who will tell you that harsh reality. That’s a major reason why Otek took our knowledge of digital panel meter technology, process control, and 0.1% accuracy measurement, and evolved into a Class 1E/Appendix B company—that’s why we designed our New Technology Meters (NTM) and our Solid State Analog Meter (SSAM) to ease the burden on the nuclear industry as it grapples with analog obsolescence and the digital transition.

            The future is bright as long as we are willing to listen to each other. We hope this hold true for nuclear energy—a resource, much like humanity itself, that has the power to elevate or destroy the world.

            For more information on our efforts to help the nuclear industry or our digital technology and how it may be of service to your applications, please call us at (520) 748-7900 or email our sales department at sales@otekcorp.com