Posted on 05/19/2008 9:54:02 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
"A nuke in every garage" is the GOP nominee's energy and climate plan.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week:
... the French are able to generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power. There's no reason why America shouldn't.
The Wonk Room, which has the audio, writes of the interview, "McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed." That is lame all by itself. But the statement quoted above is even more radical. McCain is repeating his little-noticed uber-Francophile statement from his big April 2007 speech on energy policy, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"
Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is, Why would we? Let's do the math. ...
What would it take for us to be 80 percent nuclear?
We would have to quadruple the number of reactors to 400, which would take decades even if we could somehow return to -- and sustain -- the fastest decadal rate of U.S. nuclear plant construction. But that wouldn't mean just building 300 new nuclear plants, for several reasons.
First, by 2050, almost all of the existing plants would need to be replaced, so that is another hundred to build if we want to hit the 80 percent goal.
And then, since McCain is not a big booster of energy efficiency (his McCain-Lieberman climate bill has no substantive energy efficiency provisions in it at all), we have to deal with some 1.1 percent annual electricity growth, which means we'll need more than 600 nukes in 2050.
Third, McCain wants to switch much of our oil consumption to electricity (a strategy I endorse). As he said in last year's energy policy speech:
I'll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids ... Fifty percent of cars on the road are driven 25 miles a day or less. Affordable battery-powered vehicles that can meet average commuter needs could help us cut oil imports in half.We import more than 12 million barrels of oil a day. To cut that in half to 6, when EIA projects we will import over 16 in 2030....means replacing far more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline a year with electricity. If 80 percent of that electricity comes from nuclear power, then that is -- very conservatively -- another 100 nukes.
Bottom line
To satisfy McCain's odd desire to be like the French and get 80 percent of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (gw-sized) nuclear power plants by mid-century -- more than one a month.
I have been saying so for months now on this forum, based on conversations with some of his advisers. It is total triangulation. I still don't like his rhetoric, but clearly he is screwing with the Gorian nutbags to get young skulls fush of mush votes.
I have been saying so for months now on this forum, based on conversations with some of his advisers. It is total triangulation. I still don't like his rhetoric, but clearly he is screwing with the Gorian nutbags to get young-skulls-full-of-mush votes.
One really good thing about this article: it proves that getting rid of oil is IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Anyone with half a brain should realize that creating energy policy on global warming means 2 things:
1.) destroying our economy
2.) giving the government dominant power over how we live our lives
Going nuclear is the only real way it can be done. The powers that be in this nation that have let our power supply situation detiorate to today’s crisis should be strung up high. Everyone’s bad mouthing this or that solution and, as a result, nothing of any substance has happened. Its gotten to the point where the only way we can get the right thing to happen is to shotgun it. By ‘shotgun’, I mean that we’re going to have to give the Greenies some money for their wet dream solar and wind projects.
Well how do you think he plans to man his 700+ fantasy nuke plants?
“McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants costing $4 trillion”
Surely there’s a quantity discount or price break!
Interesting point. Socialists claim to be all for diversity, but they really want the appearance of diversity. I read once on FR someone had said that socialists allow a very narrow range of opinions but encourage vigorous debate among those choices. Basically, they want us to get all of our energy from conservation, now it is up to us to debate where to conserve.
McCain may just have got my vote. I’ll keep my eye on this. Energy is as serious as the GWOT, IMHO.
McCain’s call for building more nuclear power plants is absolutely right. There are just over 100 nuclear plants in the US today. Yet we haven’t built a nuclear plant in a quarter century. In this case, the French are right. Having 50-100 nuclear plants -— or more -— under construction in the next few years would not only help to cut our dependency on foriegn oil, but it would put thousands of Americans to work. The US needs a realistic and forward looking energy policy, NOW!
That’s what I call new job creation - construction and staffing!
I keep on looking for the part where completing a plant a month would be a bad thing. Standardize the design and get building, already.
Once the first few are built, and the bugs worked out of the production schedule, there is no reason why you couldn’t ramp up production. Lots of sites, and lots of customers, so why not?
Of course, the question is, are these to be financed by utilities (and, in turn, the customers), or are these to be financed as a government program. If it is a government program, we would be lucky to build one plant in a decade.
Going nuclear frees up the coal and induces 'Coal to Oil' projects.
I am all for more nuclear power plants
now, thanks to the Dim’s environmental wing
those plants were not constructed years ago when cement and steel cost half as much as they do today
with all of Asia just now building the kind of infrastructure we have had for nearly 100 years
cement and steel - the largest material cost for a nuclear plant - are among the materials in greatest world demand
will stupid, ‘bipartisan’ McPain campaign on that knowledge, showing Dim obstructions to be the cause of the ‘energy crisis’?
NO
like idiot Bush, he wants to ‘reach across the aisle and be known as a nice guy
it will get him as far as it got GW - nowhere
Wow.
I didn’t see this coming. He usually does something to piss off the base every monday.
Too bad it’s a fantasy that he thinks we’ll buy. Face it, it isn’t going to happen and we all know it.
I agree that we need as many nuke plants as possible.
Too bad it’s a fantasy that he thinks we’ll buy. Face it, it isn’t going to happen and we all know it.
Looks like its time to buy some Westinghouse Electric stock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.