In a well written piece, the LA Times seriously addressed the future of energy in America and some of the problems with the proposed energy policies of both candidates. In particular, however, they harshly criticize John McCain. They begin by pointing out the obvious problems with "Drill, Baby, Drill" but then they delve into the heart of Sen. McCain's energy policy: his Nuclear Plans.
From the article:
And then there's "safe nuclear," a phrase as oxymoronic as "clean coal" that both candidates like to toss around. Nuclear waste remains toxic for millenniums, and no one has figured out a sufficiently permanent way of storing it. McCain's plan to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030 is either disingenuous or naive. Because the nation's existing plants are crumbling, they will have to be decommissioned as fast as new ones can be built, making it unlikely that there would be a net increase in nuclear power even if McCain's goal could be met. Moreover, private investors have no interest in building nuclear plants unless they receive generous subsidies and taxpayer-backed loans, yet the Congressional Budget Office considers such loans so risky that "well above 50%" of them would default. Nuclear power isn't just environmentally irresponsible, it's fiscally irresponsible.
This is inline w/ the findings of Environment America's new report, John McCain: Nuclear Plans which highlights in great detail why the senator's claims about nuclear energy are both misleading and misguided.
It’s clear that Sen. McCain’s nuclear proposal would be an economic disaster. It would also risk environmental disaster by creating enough waste to fill a second Yucca Mountain-sized dump and dramatically increasing the amount of nuclear waste transported on our roads and rails. Also, Sen. McCain’s plan would do nothing to deal with our current energy crisis because no new power would be generated until at least 2019.
Click here to take action and share this info