Only "extremists" want nuclear power to be safe?!?

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/16/2008 7:10:43 AM

Krazy Komment #1 last night came from John McCain last night, in response to a question by Bob Schieffer about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 new nuclear plants, power plants, right away. We can store and we can reprocess.

Senator Obama will tell you, in the -- as the extreme environmentalists do, it has to be safe.

Look, we've sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, Senator Obama, no problem.

So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that's hurting rather badly.

So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don't achieve our independence.

OK, where do we even begin here? How about with McCain's...uh, "interesting" comment about how only "extremists" want nuclear power to be safe. In reality, of course, pretty much EVERYONE would want nuclear power to be safe.  I mean, seriously, is there anyone in America who wants unsafe nuclear power and unsafe nuclear waste disposal? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we leave the waste laying around so terrorists can pick it up, or maybe it can contaminate water supplies or something?  Yeah, that's the ticket! (in fairness, by the way, renewables won't get us off of foreign oil either, unless of course we do what Al Gore suggests and convert the automobile fleet to electricity, while converting the power generation sector away from oil and towards renewables, nuclear, etc.)

Now, as far as nuclear power helping to get us off of foreign oil, that's just utter idiocy. As I commented last night:

...just 1.6% of U.S. electricity generation comes from petroleum.  Which means, of course, that all of John McCain's talk about nuclear power, renewables, etc. to get us off of oil in 7 or 8 years (or ever) is complete nonsense. Where is crude oil consumed in this country? Transportation (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) and heating oil account for the vast majority...so what on earth does nuclear power have to do with getting off of Middle East (or any) oil?  Nuclear's about getting off of COAL, not OIL. Argh, must...control...frustration!

Finally, with regard to McCain's comment that "We can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel," that sounds great but...where?  We've been arguing over a permanent repository for nuclear waste at least since 1982, coincidentally the year John McCain was first elected to Congress.  And under McCain's tremendous leadership, 26 years later we...uh, don't have a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste in this country.  But I'm sure he has a secret "plan" to find one, just as he has a "plan" to get Osama bin Laden, but won't tell anyone about it.  ***end snark***


Comments



NIMBY (varealist - 10/16/2008 8:00:38 AM)
No one ever asks where all these nuclear power plants will be built. How many local communities want a nuclear power plant? NIMBYism will be off the charts.  


How about the subsidies? (Macduff - 10/16/2008 11:37:35 AM)
According to Scientific American (Oct. 2008, p. 37) McCain's 45 nuclear plants would require massive subsidies, "costing upward of $270 billion and taking 20 years to complete." The Scientific American's editors ask: "Why invest that much public money in nuclear rather than solar or wind power, which could start pumping out watts much sooner?"  The editors also ask what McCain would do with the waste, since McCain has said that he opposes the Yucca Mountain repository.
Nor does McCain come to grips with the nuclear proliferation risks posed by nuclear waste.  
As in so many areas, McCain seems to be caught in outdated modes of thinking.  What seemed like a great idea in the 1950s  and 1960s no longer makes sense as the center piece of energy policy.  Similarly, while he claims to oppose subsidies, he favors massive subsidies for his friends.


So much for McCain being against (Lowell - 10/16/2008 11:43:58 AM)
wasteful governments spending!