The McCain Energy Plan: Homer Simpson without the Donut »
Posted by: idyll 2 weeks ago
On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican candidate descended into the colon of a nuke to declare we need to build 45 new nuclear plants - that this is the way out of our energy crisis. Nuclear power, declared the senator, is a “safe, efficient [and] inexpensive” alternative to oil. Really? We can argue all day about whether nuclear plants are safe (they aren’t –period). But there can be no argument whatsoever that these giant radioactive tea-kettles are breathtakingly expensive.
Read Full Story at gregpalast.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 21
-
-
100%
Mdiar1 week, 6 days ago
How about trying government owned nuclear power plants? Oh well, considering we can't get something like that for health care with the all powerful insurance lobby, imagine what the oil lobby would do to stop something like that... oh well.
Reply -
100%
Teech1 week, 6 days ago
McDrool has a great energy plan!
Reply
Run a pipe into his loaded Depends and use the methane gas to power Arizona!
Go, Johnnie, go - Run, Johnnie, run - LITERALLY in your Depends.
-
100%
miklkit2 weeks ago
I wouldn't mind building nukies. I could retire in style. Those things are serious cash cows. The ones that are operating today are poorly designed messes. The new generation of plants are smaller, more efficient, and much safer. Waste disposal is now the biggest issue. I still like Isaac Asimov's idea best, and no one has shot it down that I know of.
Reply
Oh yeah. how would McSame fund them? All od our money is being lost in Iraq. -
13%
beavith11 week, 6 days ago
you guys (and the writer) are buying the dem snake oil.
Reply
the utilities buy them. liability is covered by teh gov't. and the reason why they take so ling and cost so much are the kneecapping lawsuits and permit hold ups that the NIMBYs and BANANAs throw at the developer.
yes. the french and japanese models are nice. clean and efficient.
now if Jimmy Carter hadn't torpedoed the fuel reclamation process here in the states, the waste problem would've been minimized.
at just about every turn, the democrats have screwed things up.-
75%
Beau78901 week, 6 days ago
If you'd try to put aside your preconceptions before you reply to comments, you might make a little more sense.
Reply
You said "you guys are buying the dem snake oil," referring to the story's assertion that the nuclear power plants are very costly. My comment above says that the plants are owned and built by the utilities, which is what you're second paragraph says.
On the other hand, when you complain about NIMBYs, I have wonder if you'd be thrilled to live within a mile of a nuclear power plant.
And then you conclude with a statement criticizing Democrats, that is not backed up by anything else you said.
On the other hand, maybe you wouldn't make any more sense if you put aside your preconceptions before you commented.-
0%
amazed1 week, 6 days ago
as far as living next to a nuclear power plant, of course I would not. BUT...if I had to live next to ANY powerplant, I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than an oil burner or especially a coal burner.
Reply
It just about kills me that my electric bill is over $400 per month and right here in my state are three decomissioned nuclear plants -- one may have "worn out" but the other two were decommissioned for political reasons -- and I can guarantee you it wasn't Republicans who insisted that they be shut down.
Now, in their place, are many people trying to get a floating gas dock 200 yards long and 100 feet high in Long Island Sound.
Yeah, give me the nuke for sure.
-
-
-
-
100%
CHAM1 week, 6 days ago
With Solar Power, Wind Power, Geo-Thermal Power, Tidal Power, Hydrogen from water Power, Sorghum and Sugar Cane power, and Hydro Electric Power all available and non-Polluting you would think that some smart politician would come up with something better than "drilling our way out".
Reply
That is like saying if you hole is too deep, just keep on digging, somehow someway, you'll get out of the hole. That's McCain and Homer without the donut plan.-
100%
chevydog1 week, 6 days ago
CHAM -- A few weeks back on this (Propeller) website, there was a story posted about 3 solar power plants approved for a Florida utility. Their sizes were 10 MW, 15 MW, and 75 MW. They were claimed to be state of the art (which I believe), not demo units. Though I haven't read the utility's filing with their state Commission, typically they would have had to have demonstrated that his was a least cost alternative. And with the Florida location and current power costs, they had all the economic ducks lined up in their favor as much as anyone could ever hope to.
Reply
Now one of the utilities in the state in which I live (MO) rrecently announced plans to construct their first new power plant since 1982, a 1,600 MW (nuclear) unit. This will sit next to their existing 1,200 MW nuclear unit. If you look around the country at power plants being proposed, generally they are of the scale of 1,000 MW and larger.
My point? The 75 MW unit in FLA will be the largest and most technically advanced solar electrical plant in the country. It sits in a very advantageous location and was presumably justified with economic assumptions that are far better than most of its successors will be able to claim. And still all that could be justified was a 75 MW unit, puny by current power station standards. Now I believe that technical processes evolve and improve; but this would be asking the economic size of a process to increase by a factor of over ten--exceedingly uncommon, if it's ever been done.
My problem with "alternative" power is not the technology; it's the economics. That they can be made to work in some situations and in some locations is unquestionable. But it's a long way from some situations and some locations to many situations and many locations. And "many" is a bare minimum requirement to be seriously considered for a major segment of a power grid. So I'm sure that alternatives will work for some cases; but going beyond that seems to me to be more wishful than realistic thinking.
-
-
-
0%
chevydog1 week, 6 days ago
prog -- I had some small personal connection to Three Mile island (an uncle worked for Met Ed) and as engineers running a coal-based industral power plant our people were very interested that incident.
Reply
Our measured conclusion after all was said and done was that TMI was a positive affair. Why? Well, a lot of training and safety design went into the thing. Did it work? If one looks at the record of that incident, almost every choice that operators made was wrong. In spite of this nothing happened except a media event. No radiation even left the facility. From afar, we wondered why nobody ever seemed to consider that angle--that it was a worst case verification that what was done worked. Naturally, it's not the way one would wish for things; the best safety plan is one that you never have to use. Any thoughts?
-
-
100%
Tcaros1 week, 6 days ago
McCain echoes whatever his publicist and strategist tell him.
Reply
They told McCain to draw distinctions between him and Obama. If Obama is for alternate fuels then McCain wants to drill. If Obama is for clean coal and windmills then McCain is for dirty nuclear reactors.
The problem is that McCain is looking to distinguish himself, but he hasn't the brains or strategist to tell him how to do it. -
0%
kboy1 week, 6 days ago
A lot of comment from a guy that learns his science watching The Simpsons. Not a single alternate source of electricity (with the except of hydroelectric(a dam)) can compete with the efficiency and cost of a coal or nuclear power plant. The nuclear plants in the US work. The worst case was 3 Mile Island where the containment vessel worked as it was supposed to. Blame Jimmy Carter for stopping development of even safer nuclear power and recycling of fuel rods.
Reply -
0%
kboy1 week, 6 days ago
A lot of comment from a guy that learns his science watching The Simpsons. Not a single alternate source of electricity (with the except of hydroelectric(a dam)) can compete with the efficiency and cost of a coal or nuclear power plant. The nuclear plants in the US work. The worst case was 3 Mile Island where the containment vessel worked as it was supposed to. Blame Jimmy Carter for stopping development of even safer nuclear power and recycling of fuel rods.
Reply -
0%
cdbasher1 week, 6 days ago
Use Alternative fuels for our autos they say.. Obama pushes this often, but has yet to say what it will cost the US consumer in the end.
Reply
When ethanol is added to gasoline something happens that most people are not aware of.. You mileage goes down per gallon on an average of 20%.... If you use straight ethanol...it takes twice as much of this product to travel the same distance that you would if you just used straight gasoline..
America's real problems don't stem from the price of gas...They stem from the price of diesel fuel.. Gas is nothing but a run off product of kerosine..And kerosine is just strained kerosine... THE PRICE OF DIESEL IS CAUSING US PROBLEMS..NOT GASOLINE..WHEN DIESEL GOES UP EVERYTHING ELSE DOES.. It has a ripple effect..For years and years diesel fuel was always cheaper then gas..Since the us of alternative fuels hit the market oil refinery have cut don't the production of this product.. In the end we all get screwed..
Submitted By:
idyll
"You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and never get wet." - The Phantom Tollbooth
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Solar Cells - Made In a Pizza Oven
- 1.0 - Web browser to get 'privacy mode'
- 5.1 - Britain's biggest Roman villa uncovered on Isle of Wight
- 1.0 - The Dead Zone Diet
Related Articles:
- 1.0 - Report: Nuclear waste disposal will cost US $96B
- 1.0 - It's Not Just Carbon, Stupid: Dangers of Focusing Only on Climate ...
- 9.3 - Eight Strikes and You'?re Out
- 1.0 - Energy Policy TV - Oil Channel: Teleconference Preview of Clean Energy Summit
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
