With very serious issues like gun control, Russian tampering, prison reform and health care, it’s unlikely that a narrow issue like a candidate’s stance on nuclear power will sway anyone about voting for them or not. Even if it is part of the more overall critical issue of energy and climate.
But it is good to know which candidates just accept fear-mongering over science or actually care to understand a scientific issue by talking to scientists in that field.
The Green New Deal has become a significant talking point in the 2020 Presidential election. Republican leadership and the President just mock it, but most Democrats, with several exceptions, support some form of it.
Since all the leading climate scientists say we cannot address climate change without significant nuclear power, supporting nuclear power - or not - is a clear signal about how serious a candidate is about climate change and how serious they are about science over mere activism.
Even the Green New Deal's sponsor, Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), said she is neither pro- nor anti-nuclear. The plan's goal of 100% clean energy in the next decade "leaves the door open on nuclear so that we can have that conversation," she said.
Many candidates are clearly OK with using nuclear power for addressing climate change. Some clearly are not (see figure). Fourteen of the 24 presidential candidates support nuclear in some way, nine do not, and one is unclear.
As of August 5, 2019, 807 candidates have filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to run for president. Of these, 22 Democrats and 2 Republicans appear to be serious (see figure). They include Michael Bennet (D), U.S. Senator from CO, Joe Biden (D), former Vice President of the U.S., Bill de Blasio (D), Mayor of New York City, Cory Booker (D), U.S. senator from NJ, Steve Bullock (D), Governor of MT, Pete Buttigieg (D), Mayor of South Bend, IN, Julián Castro (D), former U.S. Secretary of HUD, John Delaney (D), former U.S. Congressman from MD, Tulsi Gabbard (D), U.S. Congresswoman from HI, Kirsten Gillibrand (D), U.S. Senator from NY, Kamala Harris (D), U.S. Senator from CA, John Hickenlooper (D), former Governor of CO, Jay Inslee (D), Governor of WA, Amy Klobuchar (D), U.S. Senator from MN, Seth Moulton (D), U.S. Congressman from MA, Beto O'Rourke (D), former U.S. Congressman from TX, Tim Ryan (D), U.S. Congressman from OH, Bernie Sanders (I), U.S. Senator from VT, Tom Steyer (D), a billionaire hedge fund and liberal activist from CA, Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. Senator from MA, Marianne Williamson (D), author and lecturer from CA, and Andrew Yang (D), entrepreneur and author from NY.
President Donald Trump and former Governor of MA William Weld are the two serious Republican candidates. In terms of the climate and nuclear, Trump doesn’t seem to care and Weld looks more like a Democrat, a relict of his previously being a Libertarian.
All of the candidates, except Trump, want to rejoin the Paris Agreement and want to price carbon in some way. Most also made a No Fossil Fuel Money pledge for raising donations, except for Bullock, Delaney and Hickenlooper. Similarly, most support some kind of a Green New Deal, except for those same three plus Bennet.
While most candidates are for keeping existing nuclear open to take advantage of their carbon-free energy, many keep saying new nuclear needs to be safer and have the waste issue resolved, even though nuclear is the safest form of energy we have, and the waste doesn't pose any serious risk. And we know what to do with the waste, we just can’t do anything for political reasons.
Sanders, Williamson and Gabbard are rabidly anti-nuclear and would phase out existing plants already re-licensed as safe for the next 20 years by the NRC. They don’t even like the new small modular reactors that can’t melt down and that have solved those safety issues.
Castro, de Blasio and Bullock want no new plants and don’t believe nuclear is safe, contrary to all scientific and historic data, but don’t call for closing existing plants.
Joe Biden has a $5 trillion climate plan which includes nuclear energy.
Inslee is pro-nuclear but wants more development of safety and waste related technologies. In May, he signed a clean energy bill that commits Washington State to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, and paves the way for further development of nuclear energy in the state.
Nuclear energy already provides 10% of Washington’s emission-free electricity and will be a crucial part of reaching the state’s new goal, the same as any state that has a carbon goal and existing nuclear power plants. Our own Bill Gates is a big supporter and developer of new nuclear reactors.
Bennet, Booker, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, Moulton, Ryan and Yang support existing and new nuclear plants as necessary to address climate change. Warren seems open to nuclear but has not discussed it much.
O’Rourke has been unclear, but has a $5 trillion dollar energy plan for the U.S. to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and supported the Clean Energy Plan of President Obama.
The reporting on Kamala Harris is confusing. On the one hand Politico says she supports new technologies, but USA Today reports, "Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hi., are among those who oppose including nuclear technology on the clean energy menu.”
Many of those candidates that are on the fence about nuclear because of unwarranted fear, should welcome the passage of S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act signed by the President in January. The bipartisan bill supporting new nuclear development was voted yes by 169 Dems and 192 Reps in the House. The Senate passed the bill by voice vote so no record on individual votes was made, but it did pass with no problem.
Another bill, S. 903, Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in July, and aims to restore U.S. leadership in the civil nuclear industry by helping to develop a range of advanced reactor technologies that are clean, safe and reliable. Of course, they already are clean, safe and reliable, but if it takes saying it over and over again to get us moving, and to get candidates to support it, that’s fine.
Another bill, the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act, was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators Aug 1st led by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Martha McSally (R-AR) that aims to extend the life of the country’s existing nuclear fleet. The bill would authorize $755 million per year from 2019 to 2029 to enhance the economic viability of the current U.S. nuclear fleet.
There are other political forces that affect nuclear energy. Professor Aseem Prakash and colleagues at the University of Washington looked at how Labor Unions view the Green New Deal as an indicator of Democratic support for the nascent proposal, since unions have been a backbone of the Democratic Party since they formed.
They found that 40 of the 50 unions studied had not taken a position on the GND, probably because of internal tensions between union members concerning jobs versus the environment. Many members consider that too strong environmental regulations drove many union jobs out of the country.
Of the remaining 10 unions, 7 support the GND and 3 oppose it.
So most of the candidates tout high-paying green jobs, even though almost all jobs in the energy sector are high-paying, with nuclear paying the highest and generating more jobs than any other energy source.
And there is definitely a generational divide on these issues. Since 2016, young people overwhelmingly favor Democrats because of environment issues like global warming, coal use and new oil pipelines.
Surveys of attitudes towards nuclear power indicate a general favorability of all age groups, but males aged 18-34 have the highest approval at 73% (see figure).
Young people voted in record numbers in the 2018 elections. About 31% of people aged 18 to 29 voted in the 2018 midterms, a significant increase from 21% in 2014 and is the highest level since 1992.
Nationally, voters aged 18 to 39 have nearly tripled their early voting rate since 2014. That's increased their share of the early vote by more than three percentage points.
The early voting share of voters aged 50 to 64, meanwhile, has fallen by more than 2.5 percentage points. The share of those 65 and older has fallen nearly five points.
These numbers are not lost on the 2020 presidential candidates.
