Skip to main content

View Diary: Just for the record: McCain's energy lies (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How about his proposal for 45 nuclear plants... (15+ / 0-)

    At an average costs of $8.5 Billion per power plant his proposed 45 new nuclear power plants would cost about $380+ Billion dollars.

    That would leave little for funding alternative fuels sources, not to mention that these plants are usually built with Federal and State tax dollars... yet he says he won't raise taxes!

    So where does he propose getting this kind of revenue stream from... more "borrow and spend" national debt spiking borrowing?

    Worse yet...

    1. Those plants take on average 7 to ten years to build so not one watt of power for a decade.
    1. He doesn't say which lucky state gets the waste storage site.
    1. The $380+ Billion doesn't account for cost over runs, which these plants are prone to big ones, nor security for protecting these sites from terrorist attacks, nor the decommissioning costs after they have finished their 40 average life span.
    •  do you live in Flint, Michigan, is that the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dolphin777

      reason for the name. Either way, a great post showing how much of a liar McCain is.

      The Low Road Express: So low, an ant would be too big for it.

      by sluggahjells on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It Really Doesn't Matter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leap Year, dolphin777

      Which state stores the waste, or which state donates the water (Colorado was volunteered), just as long as the waste doesn't go through Arizona, and for a bonus Arizona gets our water.  Sounds like he's got everything worked out.

      I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, The reason why I cannot tell; But this I know, and know full well, I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

      by opinionated on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another issue ... (9+ / 0-)

      more fundamentally, would they make a critical difference?

      Currently, the US has 104 operating civilian nuclear power plants for electricity production that provide a little less than 20 percent of US electricity. These new ones would be bigger than current, but the 45 would total about half of the current inventory (roughly) in production, or about 10% of current US electricity demand.  

      Thus, the 45 nuclear power plants that McCain speaks so strongly about would provide 10% of today's electricity demand by 2030, with demand growth curves showing a 30% increase in demand in electricity in this period.  

      Thus, John McCain's push on nuclear power would, it can be argue, push the US backwards 20% in terms of non-GHG emitting power sources over the next 20 years.

      •  I don't think the plan is (0+ / 0-)

        necessarily to stop at 45 plants once we get to 2030, any more than the American Wind Energy Association intends that we stop building wind turbines if it meets its self-admittedly aggressive goal of providing 20% of our electricity by then, especially considering wind turbines have an expected life of only 20 years and we would need to aggressively replace them just to maintain that level. Perhaps wave power (not available commercially) and PV (not currently cheap), and geothermal power (for the most part not available in the eastern half of the US) will combined make a meaningful dent by then. Or maybe not.

        Also, you are short changing the new plants. The current reactor has an average rating of about 960 MW each. The new plants will have ratings of 1.5 to 1.6 GW, which means the 45 plants would equate to about two thirds the current production, not half, and it would still be more than we get from hydro.

        •  Reaction (0+ / 0-)
          1.  Did I ever state/suggest that this is "stop work" on 1 Jan 2030?
          1.  Agreed that I was shortchanging (even suggest that:  "These new ones would be bigger than current").  Thank you for providing details.
          1.  Real point is that the 'signature' McCain element is only related to a small part of our overall situation / requirement.
          1.  My path for eliminating coal from the electricity equation includes some additional nuclear power as part of the equation.
          •  My apologies (0+ / 0-)
            1. There are many nuclear critics who have tried to make the point that new nuclear plants won't come on line fast enough to make a difference as if this was a race against the clock and as if wind, solar, and the rest could be deployed "in time". It wasn't obvious you aren't in that camp.
            1. I don't know that 45 nuclear plants is McCain's "signature" element, although it gets talked about a lot (as does his support for "clean coal" - whatever that is, and expanded domestic drilling). My impression is that in other respects Obama and McCain aren't particularly distinguishable by their energy policies compared to other issues. Both are in favor of cap and trade, both favor nuclear to varying degrees... McCain puts more emphasis on energy independence, Obama's stresses global warming, conservation, and jobs provided by the energy sector. Obviously each is designed first and foremost to appeal to their respective party bases. I don't expect either policy to be followed through as-is.
            •  Much (MUCH) greater difference (0+ / 0-)

              than you suggest.

              1.  McCain subsidizes nukes, fossil fuels, no support for renewables. Obama moves support from fossil fuels to renewables.
              1.  Obama has a heavy emphasis on energy efficiency, not likely under McCain.
              1.  Obama speaks, strongly, of green jobs. McCain ...?
              1.  McCain lies about his record on energy votes and lies about his utter lack of support for renewables and clean energy.
              1.  McCain has, in the past, supported a cap far below what science says is a required minimum. He has backed away from it, saying that the cap is not mandatory. Obama supports 80% by 2050, with 100% of cap and trade permits to be auctioned.

              Etc ...

              There are major differences. The blurring of differences is a McCain campaign objective.

              •  Neither candidate understands energy issues worth (0+ / 0-)

                a hill of beans.

                McCain floated the idea of federal gas tax relieve (motion seconded by Hillary). Bad idea.

                Obama panders to the farmers over ethanol subsidies and talked about opening the Strategic Oil Reserve spigot to reduce prices. Bad ideas.

                They both shift their positions according to the political winds. McCain is now hedging about opening Yucca Mountain, given that Nevada is still in play. If blurring the differences is a McCain objective Obama shouldn't be obliging by changing his tune about offshore drilling.  

    •  a nuclear bond sale purchased (0+ / 0-)

      by arabs, chinese and 'patriotic' (quasi-govt) issues with special tax writeoffs much like the TVA did for its three failed projects is where.

      "Don't push the river but don't pull no punches." Van Morrison

      by bob zimway on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (79)
  • Freddie Gray (58)
  • Bernie Sanders (56)
  • Civil Rights (48)
  • Elections (39)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (28)
  • Education (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site