John McCain: The Nuclear Option

I cannot find a link to the rail barge and truck routes to Yucca but each truck-sized container would hold up to 40 times the long-lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Each train/barge container would hold over 200 times the long-lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Each container is vulnerable to a terrorist attack and is a massive,dirty bomb on wheels. The DOE does not require the containers to undergo full-scale physical safety testing and the present parameters are out-dated and unsafe.

Back to bamboodizzard:

If all the high-level waste were moved right now to Yucca Mountain, there would not be enough space. We already need a second high level monitoring area. It WILL NOT BE DUMPED and forever left to leak.

You are counting on people in the future to be smarter than us. We as a country can't overcome the greed or money to see the folly of our actions so they are not inheriting very intelligent genes (except for JanforGore's children and a few other). Oh Yeah, perhaps they will MUTATE and become smarter.

When I lived in Maine, it was a state law that all generators of nuclear waste had to fill out a "low level" radioactive waste activity report. Keep in mind this is only the "low level" waste and does not include the TRILLIONS of high level curies generated by existing nuclear plants. For example, one nuke plant, Maine Yankee in 1988 shipped or stored a total of 463.83 curies. They also released 78.4 curies into the air and dumped 291.3 curies into Montsweag Bay. So much for the NO EMMISSIONS lie that you can, to this day, read in the newspapers. Also radioactive fish, lobster anyone? Once again, this does not include the high level waste produced by that plant.

For a total picture of the state of Maine for the year 1988, Maine Yankee produced 99.41%of the "low level" curies generated, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Federal Jurisdiction) produced 0.53% and the other eight generators COMBINED produced 0.06% (Ventrex, Jackson Laboratories, Foundation for Blood Research, Maine Medical Center, University of Maine-orono, Mount Desert Biological Laboratory, Bigelow Laboratory, and FMC Biological Products. Maine Yankee produced 100% of the Class B and C waste. At that time "low-level" waste was designated as class A, B, or C waste (C the most lethal, and exposure of 5 minutes being a lethal dose). Since then, Bush has re-written the definition of "low level" waste to include a whole lot more high level waste into the low level category.

A storage facility that would monitor and repackage as needed the Class A waste from other generators could be built with less expense and land use. It is because of nuclear power that we need a very large expensive/shielded area.

STOP MAKING NUCLEAR WASTE NOW!

In reply to bamboodizzard:

Curies instead of volume should be used as a measurement of radioactivity. The use of volume or cubic space of radioactive waste is a trick used by the industry to make people think there is not much of it. (Also used to see how big their leaking dump will have to be). It is the curies that we must isolate from the biosphere.

All of this is happening by Jan 1, 2009 in time for the Obama or McCain to set us on the path of a new generation of nuclear power. One of the meetings occurred the night of Oct 12 up in Chicago. No one in Illinois knows what is happening except for a few select people.

No Nukes! We have done enough damage to this planet.

The economic meltdown we are facing will force us all to rework our way of life, and its about time. we need to live in villages, rural and urban so that walking and biking are the main sources of transportation, mass transit next. The thing that stops me from biking is the danger of doing near cars. Policy issue. Easy fix. Make the streets safe and people will get out of their cars. Make buses safe and people will use them.

There are other things besides wind and solar and they are being developed now. Other countries are way ahead of us.

If FDR could cause the American industries to retool for war machinery in a matter of months, we could do it for a new green economy and industry. We need a Green New Deal.

The era of Right Wing exploitation, corruption and waste is over world wide with one gigantic stinking world wide depression. You can spin it any way you want to, but the world doesn't believe your shit anymore.

Even Sarkozy said "Laise Faire est finne" (excuse my anglo spelling). The point is, even he gets it. The gamble is over and if we don't stop destroying our planet, the whole story will be over for humans along with every other species.

It takes the righties a long time to admit the truth, especially if there are profits involved for them in keeping the lie alive. It took climate change reaching epic proportions before any of them would admit there is even a problem. After every farmer and hunter could see the extreme storms and droughts, the loss of habitat and decimation of species.

I don't think its stupidity, or simply a rejection of science. Its blind and selfish ugly greed. The rest of the world has turned against you, righties. Try to find something more productive to do than spend your time being trolls on progressive blogs. See if you can find solutions that don't cause more death and destruction.

Thanks Janforgore. I appreciate your postings.

Well thank goodness we are at least talking about it since it has been virtually off the agenda for the past 8 years. Many scientists think that it is already too late to arrest global warming and catastrophic climate change within the next 50 years. But we still keep talking about strategies that will take another 20 or 30 years to happen. But by then the planet that we have on loan from our children will be unfit for habitation in many areas.

The crux of the matter is that the western world is just too selfish to sacrifice their way of life which is dependent on using oil and gas and by so doing has destroyed our planet in about 100 years flat. The developing world now think it is their right to have what we have had and the problem just gets worse. We all know what must be done but wealth and the maintenance of our western way of life always comes first. Generations to come when we are all dead will curse us all for our lack of foresight and crass selfishness. I am totally ashamed of this endless bickering, this petty will you or wont you cut your emissions and no I dont want a wind farm to spoil my view attitude.

I look at children now under 10 years of age and I want to fall on my knees and beg their forgiveness for f***ing up their world because by the time they are retired they will inherit the deadly legacy that we are creating for them right now. Talk all you like about which way of generating energy is best, it doesnt matter. We should talk instead about changing our lifestyle so that we simply use less energy and by less I mean at least 60% less. Then we wont need any new power stations.

Way with you on this jjmaster. One thing to keep in mind is the reality of the energy system we have NOW and a sensible way to back away from it. There will be no shutting down of coal and Nuclear over night under any administration. That would shut down the grid causing economic chaos, safety mishaps, health hazards and more. As much as I hate it and many others hate it....we WILL be burning fossil fuels for a number of years until we have fully replaced this with true sustainable energy. There is basic logic to this that cannot be ignored. Now,,,Obama must walk a thin line on energy if he is to get elected. It is our responsibility to HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE when he is in office as well as ALL of our elected officials. We must insist on NO NUKES and push for fast advancement on sustainable energy. For one thing....We need to level the playing field and demand no more subsidies for Nuclear energy. Break up the Big Energy monopolies and rethink a local based energy grid. It is very right to educate ourselves and each other on the dangers of Nuclear energy. This list is a very long list.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/

"Investments in energy conservation and renewable energy are quicker, more cost-effective and sustainable ways to reduce global warming emissions," said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, which will oppose McCain's bill as long as it contains subsidies for nuclear power.

Such environmentalists also note that carbon emissions from nuclear fuel processing are significant. They say the costs and risks of nuclear power are too high and far greater than alternatives, such as solar and wind power.

"Switching from coal to nukes," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, "is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

McCain - whacked for sure, but did any of you nuclear plant supporters read or listen to the information on this blog? How can you ignore the dangers/hazards of nuclear plants? Obama personally has flip-flopped a bit wishywashy on this... Yes, during the last debate, he was non-committal, saying its one of the solutions we can look into. I know, like "Clean Coal?" Right? What?

Okay, this is my fairest take on Obama's stance... this is a great clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw

also Agnostic seems to be the politically correct answer... Listen to this one too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE

and finally, major backup on this...follow the money:

http://current.com/items/88832486_obama_s_nuclear_family

INVEST NOW IN GREEN ENERGIES!

Obama never stated Nuclear as being clean or his primary target for alternative fuels. Nuclear energy in todays day and age is a necessity but not as an alternative to fossil. It is only important as another toll for alternative, wind, solar, electric these are where we are heading. Nuclear should not be nor have I ever heard Barack say it was to substitute fossil at all. That is John McCain who preaches that, but if you look real close he looks like he has had his share of radioactive fallout. People lets be real who would want to start this mess all over again so our great grandkids can live through trying to survive in a world with radioactive waste that will be filling up the landfills in their generation. Lets quit dumping problems on the future generations and act responsible for a change. Just look what was done to us and learn from it.

So let me get this straight...

You think that money should be dumped into technological advances of wind and solar even though they are not consistent or powerful enough to replace our existing infrastructure, but are unwilling to put money into the technological advances in nuclear which has FAR more of an upside? Is that right?

You want to abolish all fossil fuel sources of energy in place of no waste, no consistency, no way it could possibly rise to the challenge sources of energy? Am I right again?

And finally, while nuclear power can eliminate the entire world suffering from global warming and contain the problem to an inhabited desert in the SW US miles below the surface of the earth in extremely technologically advanced storage containers, but that is not good enough....

Typical uninformed people...you all shout FIX THE SOLUTION, but then you put as many restrictions as you can on the solution.

Perhaps if you realized that there MUST be a bridge to energy independence, as well as clean energy, we could move forward as a nation toward it. You are all as bad as the oil companies.

We all would like there to be a source of power that can easily replace coal and oil and be clean for the environment, and cheap, and safe, and good, but it just does not exist right now. It is a trade off, and to me, 2 mile beneath some mountain in a desert is better than earth's atmosphere.

Educate yourselves on the inconsistency of wind and solar. Learn that they are helpful, and can ease the use of fossil fuels, but they cannot with the current technology come close to replacing them.

I am not sure it's true to say OBAMA is spewing" out nuclear as clean. I have heard him say many times something along the lines of We need to keep Nuclear on the table and see if we can find a way to deal with the nuclear waste. Anyone in their right mind can read that and know he needs to put that out there to help get elected but there is NO WAY we will find a way to store nuclear waste. So essentially what he means is...nuclear option will be proven to NOT WORK.

Both of the conglomerate candidates are "spewing" out nuclear as clean and have vested interests in more development of this earth poisoning solution... It sickens me that they won't do the next right thing! They know what they are doing, and just don't give a damn about the safety of the earth. Oh wait, in 100 years they may come up with a technology to get rid of the waste? What ignorance! After a few more "accidents," the whole world will suffer the effects... but, Ignorance is bliss right? Oh ok, let's go ahead and take a chance, it may only destroy part of the world and kill off half of the future generations right? How many people will get ill and or die from solar, or wind technologies? Oh not enough huh, not any? Well then, let's definately not use sources of alternative clean safe energies!

Abolish nuclear/coal/oil.

I don't agree with Nuclear power as a main source of fuel and John McCain says he was aboard nuclear vessels and they were as safe as diesel......well I was in the navy and I was also aboard nuclear vessels and they are not as safe as he would have you believe. Also lets not forget chernobyl and I live in New Jersey and they are always reporting they are prime targets for terror. But if he likes them he has thirteen homes with yards to put them in I wonder if he would still like them so much.

bambi, if you understood infrastructure cost, then why would you want to pay someone else perpetually for energy? Why not just invest in sustainable energy that is far better for the environment using the elements surrounding us-solar, wind, water & thermal-that ultimately pays for itself?

bamboodizzard, whence do you pull out such utter nonsense?

I agree that energy is an issue that should be tackled, but the fact is that you are uninformed about nuclear energy. Where do you get your information?

You are using examples like Chernobyl and 3 mile island as reasons not to have nuclear power. If I used examples of wind, solar, and geothermal from the 70's and 80's, I could find compelling reasons not to have those.

Nuclear power is far safer, and does not produce all this nuclear waste you are talking about. Do you know how much waste a nuclear power plant creates in a year? 3 cubic meters. You speak of this waste as if it is billions and billions of tons of waste. The space in Yucca is deep below the surface, and is 5 miles long and 25 meters wide, enough to store hundreds of years of waste from hundreds of nuclear power plants.

If the actinides are left in, the decay will last for 10,000 years, but through preprocessing and removing them, it will only last for 300. Do you think that in 300 years time, there will be enough advancement of science to responsibly dispose of the waste?

Also, the terrorist target argument. What a crock of shit that is. Do you know what happens when a nuclear reactor is damaged? It does not explode like an a-bomb or leak out a sea of green glowing goo. It shuts down. Not to mention, why the hell would we as a country not do something because of the threat of terrorism, isn't that exactly how terrorists would win?

The fact is that you do not know about nuclear power, and you think that something as complex, divisive, and global as energy policy can be solved with wind and sun? Really? Do you think the worlds problems are that simple? I guess anybody with a bachelors could have figured this out, why are all the world's scientists so stupid that they do not see the obvious answer!?

This misinformation is the same shit that I read on Fox News, only coming from the other side. This is the reason that Republicans chant "Drill baby Drill." Why are you people complaining about global warming, and about energy independence and then saying that the only source is wind and sun without even knowing the demands, costs, and infrastructure problems associated with them. You cannot have it both ways. Either get fully educated about ALL of the options and espouse your thoughts on the subject, or stay partially educated and keep your mouth shut, but this partial education, total bloviation is for the birds.

Neither of them actually care about the environment at all, very disappointing...but i have my other ways for still living green...

I propose a moratorium on nuclear power for anybody who pronounces the word, "nook-ewe-lur."

Nuclear fission does not give out as much power as it takes in. However, in nuclear fusion, about 90% the energy put into it comes out, more than fission, coal burning, gasoline, wind, hydroelectric, or geothermal. Fusion would be the most powerful energy production method ever. That's what we should research.

great idea! But 10 years is a long time. How about they make it next year. That would be great. They can tear down trees and build 50 homes or more in one month. But they can't switch to Solar or wind power?

Here's something we all can do: I paid my utility bill yesterday and in the envelope I wrote on the bill: "100% "renewable" energy in 10 years. We can do it." Maybe if we all did that as well as writing just one letter to our local papers about this it might begin a groundswell.

Why do rich people have to be so evil?

'Book says pinning down the cost is tricky—estimates for a new reactor vary from four to nearly 11 billion dollars. At, say, seven billion each, McCain's proposal means 315 billion dollars someone has to come up with. And that someone could be you, as a ratepayer or taxpayer. The industry would get billions in production tax credits. And taxpayers could be on the hook for much greater sums if companies default on government-guaranteed loans.'
Where do you put that kind of radioactive waste, and where do you get that kind of money?

Same old garbage if you don't agree with janforgore you are ignorant

Nuclear power should never be used. If people decide to use it regardless of the consequences we have to at least find a way to dispose of the waste in an environmentally friendly way. I don't mean storing it in Yucca Mountain either (I think that's even been halted). Anyway there are far better ways of generating energy like solar and wind. Also JanforGore hit on the fact that creating more nuclear plants creates more "terrorist" targets. If these nuclear plants get hit by"terrorists" or they have a meltdown they aren't something you want in your backyard. Remember 3 mile island? I'm sure that isn't something people are exactly eager to repeat.

Nothing you are saying is true. Nuclear is safe, and the only energy source that can create the power we need. Wind, solar, geothermal... those are all good ideas, but not sustainable at the current moment. Perhaps in the future.

YOU need to stop misinforming people to push your own hippie agenda

McCain has gotten over a million dollars from the oil and gas lobbies if I am not mistaken. Obama hasn't done too bad either, although to be fair not as much as McCain. Although, Obama has also gotten more from investment houses than McCain, Go figure that one. Anyway, either way on energy policy we are screwed if they both continue on this path of nuclear and clean coal and drilling... unless we become more involved in the process and in educating others about the viability of solar and other alternate sources that are ready now.

Seriously McCain has been pissing me off too when he talks about nuclear energy, and how efficient and clean it is. um no it is not clean at all. What about all the byproduct that has to be stored in remote locations of our country underground or underwater. It takes anywhere from 10,000 - 1,000,000 years for the waste to become safe enough for the environment.

Once again John Mccain has shown his true intention.
He backs monopolies such as big oil. He now wants to back another centalized/monopolistic form of energy- nuclear. The 26 year senator in Arizona- land of the sun, never once advocated for solar- a sustainable non monopolitsic form of energy.

In Arizona no less- the number one state for sunshine.
In Arizona- near last for health care and near last for public education. Mccain never met a a war he didnt vote for!

The man is a throw back with huge emotional scares from the Vietnam War that push his pro-war agenda policies! He is unstable irrational and goes against the grain- hence the Maverick label!
He is the last person the nation needs to lead us from eight years of turmoil that Mccain himself has blessed!

Back to nuclear- where do you think all the nuclear waste will end up? It will dangerously be shipped upon vulnerable trains to the deserts of the soutwest!
No way! No Mccain!

Wind and solar are ready now and already in use. Either STOP LYING or prove your assertion. The only things stopping them from getting to market on a wider scale to those who need them are red tape, greedy obstructionist politicians, and a complicit media that helps keeps the masses in the dark... and ignorant people who perpetuate it all with their political partisanship.

Nuclear is too dangerious.

Coal is too dirty.

Gas burns too much carbon.

Wind, and Solar is not ready for prime time energy production to support our present population.

I guess we're all supposed to die, so Polar Bears can live.

cont.

YOUNG: The Nuclear Institute says 45 reactors would keep nuclear at 20 percent of the country's electricity mix as demand rises. But some who watch energy investments aren't so sure the money to build them would be there. Kevin Book is an energy analyst with FBR, an investment bank in Arlington, Virginia.

BOOK: It will be a stretch, to be quite frank. The problem will be getting them built, and getting them built with the labor force we have, and at prices that local regulated utilities will want to pay. You're still going to need a lot of money and you're going to need a lot of time. It's 2008, last time I checked. That gives 22 years to build 45 of something we haven't built in 30 years. From my perspective that sounds like a challenge.

YOUNG: Book says pinning down the cost is tricky—estimates for a new reactor vary from four to nearly 11 billion dollars. At, say, seven billion each, McCain's proposal means 315 billion dollars someone has to come up with. And that someone could be you, as a ratepayer or taxpayer. The industry would get billions in production tax credits. And taxpayers could be on the hook for much greater sums if companies default on government-guaranteed loans. And then there is the question of what to do with the waste. McCain wants to finish the Yucca Mountain repository for permanent underground storage. But that project faces opposition in congress and the courts. McCain also wants the U.S. to reprocess the spent fuel.

MCCAIN: The Japanese, the British, the French do it, and we can do it too.

YOUNG: Reprocessing—sometimes called recycling—separates useful material from spent fuel. But it's controversial among nuclear experts. MIT professor and former Clinton administration energy department official Ernie Moniz says it's a bad idea.

MONIZ: There is a misconception that the program in France, for example, that relies upon plutonium recycling, has somehow solved the waste management problem. It has not. It costs more, it creates stores of plutonium. So there are some issues there that need to be clarified.

YOUNG: So both of McCain's plans for dealing with waste would run into opposition. Financing construction of new reactors would be very tough. And safety concerns from environmentalists would complicate McCain's effort to link nuclear power incentives to climate change legislation. But for all the criticism McCain catches, he has at least been consistent. Which has not been the case with his opponent.

OBAMA: I am not a nuclear energy proponent.

YOUNG: This was Senator Obama last year. Here's Obama this month.

OBAMA: I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.

YOUNG: Just where does the Democratic presidential candidate stand? We'll take a look at his nuclear record next week.

From the link:

YOUNG: After almost 30 years of near zero growth in the U.S., nuclear industry leaders say they are poised for a nuclear renaissance. And Senator John McCain is a nuclear renaissance man.

MCCAIN: I'd like to say, I'm very grateful to be here at the Fermi Nuclear Plant. I want to thank the great workers and people here who have made nuclear power safe, efficient, inexpensive and obviously...

YOUNG: In August McCain toured the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating site in Michigan—a venue that struck some as an odd place to highlight nuclear safety. Nuclear opponent Jim Riccio of Greenpeace:

RICCIO: It's one of the few sites in the U.S. where you've actually already had a meltdown. It was an experimental breeder reactor, and that reactor experienced a partial core melt back in '66. So it was ironic that of all the places in the U.S. that the senator could go he chose the site of a meltdown.

YOUNG: If Senator McCain was unaware of Fermi's spotty safety history, he wasn't alone. Leaders of the industry's powerful trade group in Washington, the Nuclear Energy Institute, didn't know either.

FLINT: No, the Fermi plant operates very safely.

YOUNG: That's Alex Flint, the Nuclear Institute's senior vice president for
government affairs.

FLINT: The entire nuclear renaissance is based on the fact that the 104 plants operating today have an extraordinary safety and environmental record. And it is that, it's the safety and environmental record of the existing plants that makes it possible for us to contemplate this renaissance in nuclear power.
YOUNG: But what happened at Fermi in 1966?

FLINT: Uh that was three years before I was born, I'll have to go off and ask somebody.

YOUNG: I think they had meltdown.

FLINT: No. no.

YOUNG: Flint called a colleague who confirmed Fermi's meltdown history.

FLINT: (on phone) Okay, that's what I needed. Thanks. (Hangs up) Well, you asked me a question I never heard before.

YOUNG: It was an awkward moment. And it reflects a larger awkward phase for the nuclear industry. The presidential campaign puts it in the limelight as a potential energy source for the future. But that also brings into focus nagging problems from the past—questions about safety, waste, and tremendous cost. McCain believes those challenges pale compared to the threat of global warming.

MCCAIN: And, you can't be serious, you can't be serious about reducing the effect of greenhouse gas emissions unless you factor in nuclear power into the equation.

YOUNG: That was McCain in an interview with Living on Earth in 2004. The following year he added incentives for nuclear power to his Climate Stewardship Act, which aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That alienated some environmental allies and cost crucial votes in the Senate, where the Act failed.

Now McCain proposes 45 new reactors by the year 2030—and a longer-term goal of 100 reactors. Again, environmentalists like Jim Riccio, who applauded McCain for tackling global warming, are aghast at his insistence on nuclear power.

RICCIO: If you actually want to address climate change you need to do things that are fast and affordable. Last year we put 5,000 megawatts of wind on the grid here in the United States. You're not going to put that kind of nuclear power on the grid for well over a decade and by then climate change will be upon us, and potentially unabateable.