Not-So-Bright Ideas
…
McCain claims that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap, but it is none of the above. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for millenniums, and this country still hasn’t developed a practical way to store it. The risk of meltdowns or other serious accidents remains high, there is a small but persistent threat of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists, and the cost of building new plants, even though it’s subsidized by the federal government, is prohibitive.McCain can be forgiven for ignoring or downplaying such issues; they’re mostly technical challenges that could someday be resolved. He can’t be forgiven for pretending that his goal of building 45 plants in 22 years is practical, nor that it would make any difference if it were.
The great majority of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States are nearing the end of their useful lives; by McCain’s 2030 deadline, roughly half may have to be decommissioned. So even if it were possible to build so many plants so quickly, there’s a good chance they still wouldn’t replace those that would be closed — meaning the amount of energy the U.S. derives from nuclear power wouldn’t change. And it is extraordinarily unlikely that McCain’s goal could be met. Because of the regulatory and community hurdles that must be overcome to build a plant, experts think it would take more than a decade from planning to completion for any new project. Add to that the fact that even though investors have applied for 10 licenses for new plants since September 2007, no U.S. utility has dared to build one since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.
Before gas prices started soaring and McCain emerged as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, his ideas on energy sounded very much like Obama’s, focusing on renewable power, carbon controls and efficiency. Campaign consultants doubtless deemed that too crunchy-granola for the GOP base, so he has taken to tossing it red meat by talking up nuclear power and increased offshore oil drilling. But misleading the public about nuclear energy will not serve the country, or his campaign, well.
“Paris Hilton may not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.”
– Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman
Yeah, right. What’s sadder? Each new low that the McCain campaign stoops to each week, or the fact that he’s still polling in the mid-40%s? Who are these people supporting McCain? Republidrones?
3 Responses
Brian
09|Aug|2008 1Remind me how many people died in the “three mile island disaster”, you know that “huge incident” three decades ago. Shit we have had one major non-lethal fuck up in our country’s 50 year history of using nuclear power, that McCain is a madman to even be thinking about the stuff.
You raise a good point about the storage though, you know they bury that stuff in mountain in the middle of the Nevada desert. Why what if it were to seep into the abundant local water supply and 20 years later potentially give cancer to all those people living out there. It would be the greatest environmental disaster since this one time when I took a shit in the woods after eating a lot of hot sauce.
You have a good point though mentioning that it is cost prohibitive to build a nuclear power plant especially when compared to other energy sources without harmful emissions such as solar and wind which are just as efficient and reliable… erm, wait… Then of course there is all the red tape involved in getting a nuclear power plant started, especially with all of the environmental groups filing lawsuit after lawsuit to keep those coal plants in business. Oh my God, I just realized, the majority of our country’s energy still comes from global warming contributing plants because of ignorant sue-happy buttfuckers such as yourself… ain’t that a bitch?
I’ve missed you Zeke.
Zeke
11|Aug|2008 2I think nuclear energy is relatively safe, but humans do make mistakes, plus your 2nd paragraph (my primary concern). It also has foreign poli drawbacks (”we can play, you can’t”), and the (again small) possibility for terrorism.
As the article points out, McCain’s pledge (if even possible) would only tread water re: how much energy we gain from nuclear. Considering the drawbacks, I think it makes sense to focus our time on alternatives. (no… not “clean” coal.)
by white male consumer
05|Sep|2008 3[...] McCain’s Dimwitted Energy Plan Archives Select Month September 2008 (1) August 2008 (14) July 2008 (11) June 2008 (5) May 2008 (5) April 2008 (5) March 2008 (8) February 2008 (8) January 2008 (10) December 2007 (8) November 2007 (7) October 2007 (2) September 2007 (6) August 2007 (4) July 2007 (5) June 2007 (4) May 2007 (9) April 2007 (7) March 2007 (7) February 2007 (9) January 2007 (11) December 2006 (8) November 2006 (11) October 2006 (11) September 2006 (5) August 2006 (6) July 2006 (2) June 2006 (3) May 2006 (2) April 2006 (10) March 2006 (7) February 2006 (16) January 2006 (17) December 2005 (6) November 2005 (15) October 2005 (14) September 2005 (17) August 2005 (5) July 2005 (5) June 2005 (10) May 2005 (9) April 2005 (19) March 2005 (23) February 2005 (25) January 2005 (13) December 2004 (24) November 2004 (43) October 2004 (41) September 2004 (26) August 2004 (12) July 2004 (7) June 2004 (10) May 2004 (12) April 2004 (41) March 2004 (26) February 2004 (34) January 2004 (12) 0 (1) Blogs [...]
Leave a reply