Nuclear Debate ( Should u buy Nuclear stocks ? )

Obama Takes Both Sides in Nuclear Debate
By JIM MCTAGUE
OBARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRESUMPTIVE STANDARD bearer, is not a proponent of nuclear power. He has said so publicly. Then again, he is not opposed to nuclear power. He's said this publicly, too.
Like a subatomic particle in quantum mechanics, Sen. Obama has been able this primary season to be in two places simultaneously when discussing nuclear energy. His has been a masterful piece of political legerdemain. He's appeased both the nuclear industry, which continues to line his campaign's pockets, and the environmental community, which fetes him as an enviro-warrior. But this fence-straddling strategy could cause him acute pain once the press and the public begin to parse his statements more carefully to ascertain exactly what the charmingly vague senator from Illinois stands for.
His campaign machinery does not operate smoothly under the bright lights. His press team responds to direct questions with evasion. This is a mechanical reaction engendered by a candidate's fear of being defined by his opponents rather than by his own, highly paid consultants.
A case in point: We asked his campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor several times for an explanation of intriguing and baffling remarks Obama made in Miami last month promoting the transfer of U.S. energy know-how to Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina, and seven days later had not received an answer. As of deadline, we were still waiting.
In this speech to a predominantly Hispanic crowd, Obama promised U.S. support for investments by global organizations like the World Bank to preserve the rain forests and its fauna. He promised to rigorously enforce environmental standards in U.S. trade deals. Then, he suddenly dropped this little bombshell: "We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American people to join in this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean-energy solutions."
What technology are we to share? Would it be the fruits of his so-called Manhattan Project for green energy that will be financed from billions in fees paid by U.S. companies under his proposed cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions? Why a nuclear powwow? Is he proposing that the U.S. help construct new nuclear plants in South America while opposing them at home, or is he merely building on President Bill Clinton's 1997 agreement to sell nuclear technology to Brazil and Argentina? And what's the deal with an Energy Corps?
We wanted Obama's team to flesh out these points, since they seemed like major policy proposals from a major speech.
Vietor's reaction was not what you'd expect from a press secretary representing a candidate who promises to change the way things are done in Washington. "I think you are reading too much into the speech," he said.
VIETOR SAID THE CAMPAIGN'S official stance on nuclear energy is that it is unlikely the nation can meet its aggressive climate goals if nuclear energy is taken off the table. "However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know; security of nuclear fuel and waste; waste storage; and proliferation."
When Obama was a state senator in Illinois between 1996 and 2004, he was considered pronuclear -- although he introduced no major legislation. Chicago-based Exelon and its subsidiary ComEd, big nuclear-plant operators, are big employers. And Obama's statehouse patron, Emil Jones, the Illinois Senate's Democratic leader, was also a friend of the industry.
In the U.S. Senate in 2006, Obama took up the banner of Illinois residents outraged that Exelon had not publicly disclosed leaks at one of its nuclear plants. Mike McIntire of the New York Times reported in February that Obama rewrote a tough measure in order to please Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators before the bill even cleared committee. The bill died on the Senate floor.
In July 2007, Obama said he was in favor of "energy independence" from despotic oil regimes. To achieve this independence, he talked positively about renewable energy, clean coal and increased mileage standards for cars. Nuclear energy was not specifically identified as part of the mix.
In December 2007 in Iowa, a young woman asked him where he stood on the question of nuclear energy: "I know you consider it an essential component of your alternate-energy plan. Are you truly comfortable with the safety of nuclear power?"
Obama's response: "Let me tell you that I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal; so I am not a nuclear-energy proponent." He said nuclear was not an option until it was safer and could be built "without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government." He said he favored solar and wind. He acknowledged that every proposed solution had some problems. And then he concluded, "I have not ruled out nuclear as part of the package."
Welcome to the world of quantum politics, where a candidate can be two places at once. It worked in the primary. We doubt it will hold up in the larger political universe.