McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants (and seven Yucca mountains) costing $4 trillion

“A nuke in every garage” is the GOP nominee’s energy and climate plan.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week:

… the French are able to generate 80% 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% 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.

..........

For my fellow energy realists, I would add that it would take an astonishing effort just to have nuclear power in 2050 provide the same 20% of U.S. power it does today — an outcome I am not inherently opposed to, but I certainly wouldn’t devote yet more tens of billions of federal subsidies to, as McCain would, especially given the myriad flaws nuclear power has.

That’s why I have little doubt that if we can move beyond the uninformed platitudes of people like McCain and ever really get serious about global warming and peak oil, then the realistic, affordable solution is at hand — namely energy efficiency to avoid significant load growth, concentrated solar power to replace most coal, and wind power for plug-in charging. And yes, we’ll still have some hydro and nukes and combined cycle natural gas turbines and/or cogen in 2050, and possibly even some coal with carbon capture and storage, assuming that industry ever gets serious about that possible solution.



http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/

and then I moved to California during the Enron energy scam. Even so, I paid more for my nuke power than I do for my Enron-gouging power.

i'm actually not sure i understand why nuclear is considered "conservative".

there are dangers and death in any form of energy production and distribution, and nuclear is among the safest. but, like airplane travel, the dangers and deaths are in the scariest form -- all at once and very dramatic.

and most relevantly, "in my backyard".

however, i like the lack of polution in getting away from fossil fuels, although other non-fossil energies share this benefit.

in any event, i certainly believe in a MIX of technologies, and wouldn't go gung-ho on nuclear without also investing in other forms, such as solar, geothermal, etc.

i wouldn't want to be dependent on uranium any more than petroleum.

...taken too far, by the wrong candidate, from the wrong party to oversee it.


Duke

remember the Freedom Fries!!!!!1111

:rofl:

so its easy to make some bullshit statement like that.

So, John,what can you do for us in the next 4 years?

disposal problems