McCain and Lieberman shilling for nuclear power.
May 23rd, 2008 | by Dusty |McCain gave a speech recently about the environment and alternative energy. Some folks gave him kudos for that speech and his stance, which possibly pissed off a few Rethugs.
Many more of us figured it was bullshit on a stick. And it was…
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) are already circulating a proposed amendment [PDF] to their own Climate Security Act that would alter the bill to include more explicit support for nuclear power.
The amendment calls for “a portion of funds, as determined necessary by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction” be deposited into the Low- and Zero-Carbon Electricity Technology Fund already contained in the bill. This money would “fund a tax policy that will incentivize the manufacturing of nuclear project components in the United States.” As the bill stands currently, the nuclear industry would be already be able to access this fund, as would any low- or no-carbon technology. The amendment would carve out specific monetary support for the nuclear industry, while other renewable sources would have to contend for the remaining pot of money.
Johnny McCain is backing these changes. Said a McCain campaign advisor:
“He wants to support the bill, he supports the goals of the bill, but he believes a comprehensive nuclear component needs to be added to it.”
But it shouldn’t be at the expense of other safer alternative methods. Unless that group is part of the folks his lobbyist buddies shill for.
Crossposted at Its my Right to be Left of the Center
18 Responses to “McCain and Lieberman shilling for nuclear power.”
By Chris Radulich on May 23, 2008 | Reply
What is wrong wih nuclear power. France gets 75% of their power from it and have not killed anyone.
By Dusty on May 23, 2008 | Reply
Click on the map at the bottom of the post to see what’s wrong with it.
We don’t know what to do with the leftovers. Unless and until we do, I will not support it.
And the main point is…the amendment is taking away from other safer forms of alternative energy that are in their developmental stages.
The Nuke industry has to figure out what to do with the million years of radioactive crap they have just laying about.
By Paul Watson on May 23, 2008 | Reply
Well, it’s a non-renewable resource so you’ll have the same problem in the future as are currently happening with oil as the resources get rarer.
Of course, the other issue is that other countries also want nuclear power. It’s quite hard to say: No, you can’t have it when you’re building dozens of them yourself. I know the argument is that Iran would use them and the US wouldn’t, but outside the US this doesn’t really play after the invasion of Iraq and the plans for bunker buster mini-nukes.
Also, the argument isn’t about whether nuclear should get the money, but whether it should get a chunk set aside for it when no other low carbon technology does.
By Dusty on May 23, 2008 | Reply
Also, the argument isn’t about whether nuclear should get the money, but whether it should get a chunk set aside for it when no other low carbon technology does. Thank you Paul
By Chris Radulich on May 23, 2008 | Reply
from a press release
“Taking all factors into account,” says Mr. Sokolov, “there are certainly no resource constraints on nuclear power development in the 21st century and, most likely, for a long time thereafter.”
Nuclear power generates 16% (about one sixth) of the world´s electricity. There are 442 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries. Most operating nuclear power plants are in Western Europe and North America, but most new plants under construction are in Asia.
So the US building more should not matter.
Personally I think that giving nukes a special standing is worthwhile. It is a proven technology and it is safe. It can be scaled to the size you need.if we had chosen this path in the seventies, we would not be in the present circumstances of funding the mideast.
By Dusty on May 23, 2008 | Reply
I don’t buy it Chris. Sorry.
Unless you have lived in an area poisoned by toxic leftovers, I guess I can’t expect you to be as rabid about disposal of nuke waste as I am.
It’s all nuke waste, not just reactor shit.
By steve on May 24, 2008 | Reply
To Chris’s first point:
That is France’s problem!! They can’t kill anyone! (See WWI and II)
Dusty,
That’s Californians do. If they are done with it and need to dispose of it, send it to Bakersfield!!
All your water are belong to us!
Personally,
We should build more nuke plants so we can reduce our dependence on oil (so I can afford faster cars). I think America could actually get behind a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Their energy policies actually make sense. Ship the waste to space, with sustainable materials of course. Why aren’t we dumping that shit in Nevada though?
By Dusty on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Its not funny steve. Bakersfield is the shithole waste disposal site for most of SoCal. The republicans judges agree with you…how fucking quaint.
The Yucca Mt site will probably never be used…but we keep sinking money into that money pit. More of Bush’s friends I suppose.
By Chris Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
I was living on Long Island during the shoreham fiasco. They should not have shut it down.
The waste problem is minor compared to the technologies used now. Solar and wind are not quite ready for prime time. Tide and wave power is in the experimental stage.
I’m all for encouraging these forms and for using them instead of nuclear plants when they are feasable. However keep in mind that nuclear fusion and cold fusion plants have been just around the corner for over 50 years now. We need solutions now, not in twenty years. And then it still a maybe.
By Dusty on May 24, 2008 | Reply
I am appalled that you consider the nuclear waste problem minor. The folks along the Columbia River don’t share your pov.
By christopher Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
so what you are saying is that americans are nowhere as competent as the rest of the world in handling nuclear waste.
By christopher Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Also dusty I assume you are for shutting down all the other industries that have cause superfund sites.
By Dusty on May 24, 2008 | Reply
There is a difference between toxic groundwater/soil and every bit of earth being radioactive for a century or two Chris.
Industries that cause toxic groundwater and soil are lazy, cheap or yes inept.
The Hanford Storage site is a joke…but one that is far from funny. The stuff at Hanford is from production of nuclear weapons only. We have amassed hundreds of pounds of nuclear leftovers from the reactors that are mostly shutdown now…or operating on partial loads, like San Clemente’s which btw..is leaking. WA state’s website on what Hanford has contributed to the Columbia River..the gift that will keep on giving in perpetuity.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/publications/overview/columbia.html
By Chris Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Much like the chemical industry. Remember Love canal?
By Dusty on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Of course I remember Love Canal, it took them fucking decades to ‘clean it up’ if it is in fact safe..I trust no governmental agencies run by Bushies.
The Europeans are running out of safe, secure places to put their most radioactive waste too Chris..its a worldwide problem. They are now shipping the shit to Russia, the worlds biggest dumping grounds.
Everyone, and I mean all countries admit they haven’t got a fucking clue on how to store or breakdown the most hazardous of the radioactive waste. Until they do..,it can remain unused for me and countless others.
Back to the point…taking money away from other technologies to give it to nuke lovers is bullshit. They alll need to compete equally for the funds.
By Chris Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
actually they are shipping it to russia to be recycled.
By Chris Radulich on May 24, 2008 | Reply
solar power Largest facility 12 megawatts
wind power seems to have lagre power potential as briton is building one to power a million homes (cost 6 billion)
wave powers largest is 2.25 megawatts.
Tidal power 300 megawatts (by 2015 maybe cost 1 billion plus)
all of these technologies require special environmental sites. Wind and solar require large land areas.
So my point is that nuclear is the most likely to ease our energy problems in the near future and allocating money to it is not a bad Idea.
By Dusty on May 24, 2008 | Reply
Actuallly, not all of it can be recycled Chris..you know that right?
And I don’t give a shit how easily Nuke power will ease our gluttonous need for oil…they need to figure out how to permanently store the radioactive leftovers.
Allocating money to it IS wrong when it takes from other alternative energy sources. Using your pov, we will never be able to increase other forms of energy because they aren’t developed..that is why the money needs to be allocated equally in my pov.
The nuke industry needs to figure out wtf to do with the waste..on their dime..not ours. They are making money off the source..they need to spend some of it on new ideas for dealing with the waste.