" We talked about nuclear power. Well, it has to be safe, environment, blah blah blah."The word environment is a Pavlovian stimulus to Republicans and of course McCain is preaching only to the dogs at this point. "Enviros" are a favorite bogeyman because of course, "gimmie-gimmie, I want it for free" Republicans don't want to talk about the dangers inherent in nuclear power plants at all. They don't want to talk about the huge amount of time they take to build and to make them as safe as they are. When dogs, children and Republicans want something, they want it now, now, now and lying politicians like John McCain are always there to dangle it in from of them.
So what is McCain saying; the hell with safety? I want cheap energy no matter what the risk? I don't give a damn if New York or Chicago become the next Chernobyl? Yes, he is. That's just what he's saying and he's saying it in full knowledge that having it in the near future is out of the question.
"we've been sailing Navy ships around the world for 50 years with nuclear power plants on them."Aye, aye Captain, but they're small, extraordinarily expensive and aren't spending most of their time parked in Phoenix or Denver or Little Rock. Unlike the expense of building and maintaining a Nimitz class carrier, the public sees the cost of electricity every month. New power plants are going to appear on your electric bill long before one Watt gets generated. To replace the oil we import today, we will need far more plants costing far more billions than High Roller John is willing to discuss.
Indeed there may have been accidents on Navy ships, despite what Mr. McCain says. Of course Three Mile Island comes to mind too. But hey - the hell with safety - we want nukes. We don't want to think about what to do with radioactive waste or what to do with obsolete plants after they have been shut down. Screw safety - Now, now, now!
"I have news for Senator Obama, nuclear power is safe, we ought to do it now."So far it's been relatively safe but with nukes it's not only about odds, it's about the unbelievable consequences of an accident. A bad accident or terrorist incident can render large areas unlivable for thousands of years. That's why building them takes a lot of time and money. That's why we can't "do it now." McCain will likely be dead before nuclear power makes a dent in our importation of oil and he certainly won't have to worry about the long term consequences of his blah, blah, blah, arguments, will he?
Of course the cornerstone of this argument is essentially false. As with the offshore drilling argument and indeed most of the negative tirades we're hearing about Obama, it's based on what they say Obama said, and not necessarily what Obama actually said or meant. The arguments are so noisy just for this reason: to drown out reason, to obscure the facts. The fact is that to say we need to be careful when playing with dangerous things is not to oppose nuclear power. John is putting words in Barak's mouth only because he wants to win and doesn't care how much he lies to do it or how much his lies would cost you.
Cross posted from Human Voices
Ja! now-time is the only time! "The here and the now of the land of the space of today," to borrow a crazy phrase from Finnegans Wake--one of the few I can remember from that epical forged check upon the public. Excellent post, Capt. Fogg. The current Republican Party is pretty much nineteenth-century oriented in its thinking about the environment: they seem to view the world around them as a threat that needs to be neutralized, a stock of resources to be "utilized," and so forth. Reminds me of the only long bus trip I ever took -- I was sitting next to a chatty logger, and he kept pointing to various splendiferous species of Northern California trees and saying, "Now you see that shit over there? I've cut shit like that down lots of times. And this shit on the left, I've worked on that, too!" I've never forgotten this no doubt skilled but oblivious person -- to him, nature was "shit."
ReplyDeleteSure, vain McCain-Without-A-Brain also made the claim that NO oil platforms were lost in the Gulf during Hurricane Katrina, although records show over 100 platform disappeared without a trace (and not one news source challenged McCain's rubbish).
ReplyDeleteMy preferred source of energy is Cervantes Power. I like wind, and there are a bunch of wind turbines at Castile-La Mancha near Toledo, Spain. T-Boone likes wind too and has invested $2 billion to build a one-gigawatt wind farm in West Texas. (T-Boone may be a fascist pig but at least he is a smart fascist pig.)
Unlike "new-clear" power, wind farms can be built piecemeal and produce useable energy with the first turbine. Did you ever hear of a half-finished coal or "new-clear" power plant produce anything? It takes a decade or more to build one coal or nuclear power plant.
Here is another factoid: A farmer in Iowa growing corn for ethanol would earn about $3,000 from a hectare of land. One wind turbine occupying less than a tenth of a hectare (about 1/4 acre) would earn the same farmer $10,000 a year (assuming a 3% commission on the value of electricity produced).
Coal-powered electrical generation currently costs about 5 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh), the cheapest in the known universe. Wind power costs about 8 cents per kwh, just slightly more than coal but on par with natural gas. If a carbon sequestration tax were levied on coal, all costs would be equal making wind and natural gas cost competitive.
But perish the thought of making Joe Six-Pack pay a carbon tax to secure our energy future.
There is only one hitch: our entire electrical grid would require updating to accommodate wind generation ... on the order of $100s of billions. But considering that energy import costs are running $700 billion a year, the return on investment would be quick and well worth it.
I like wind ... but not windbags like vain McCain-Without-A-Brain. Besides I'm a sea creature so what do I know about stuff like this?