McCain Tries to Classify Nuclear Power as Renewable Energy; Voted Down

Sunday, June 07, 2009

If you’ve wondered how life would be different if John McCain had won the 2008 presidential election, here’s one example of McCain supporting a policy that Barack Obama opposes.

At the urging of President Obama, members of the U.S. Senate are trying to craft a plan that would require utility companies to generate 15% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2021. During debate this week over what a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would encompass, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) tried to push through an amendment that would classify nuclear power as a renewable energy. “Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, have cleaner sources of energy and diversity: I certainly think nuclear power meets all of those definitions,” McCain told his colleagues, who rejected his proposal.
McCain isn’t the only senator trying to find a place for nuclear power in the current energy debate. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) claims excluding carbon-free nuclear power from the renewable standard penalizes states in the Southeast that have invested heavily in nuclear power plants. Unlike the Midwest, which can turn to wind, or the Southwest, which has lots of sun, the South does not possess the same abundance of a natural renewable source of energy. But it does have the highest density of nuclear plants of anywhere in the country.
-Noel Brinkerhoff


jfarmer9 13 years ago
Kerry Bradshaw, Please do not associate solar and wind crowd as environmentalist. I did like the idea of them being called Shills. I think to allow these folks to claim the mantel of environmentalist is like Adolph Hitler claiming himself as a great humanitarian. Viva Nuclear Renaissance Jfarmer9
kerry bradshaw 13 years ago
One is amazed at the stupidity of the alternative energy crowd. The issue isn't whether nuclear should be declard renewable, but why renewable is used rather than the accurately described "carbon-free." Carbon-free is what we want. We don't give a rat's ass about reneability - there will be nuclear fuel to power our plants long, long after they are decommissioned, so any claims by brainless environmentlaists about the desirability of "renewableness" are pure nonsense. And those renewables that are biomass, etc. pump tens of thousands of tons of carbon in the atmospher and are not carbon neutral and will do nothing to reduce carbon emmissions in the atmosphere. The Chinese are building 1 new 1100 megawatt nuclear plant every 2 months. Since a 1310 megawatt solar thermal plant can only average 300 megawatts, and last 20 years or one third as long as a nuclear plant, a $5 billion nuclear plant will equal $27 billion for solar thermal. Now I wonder why those figures are never made public by the shills for the solar and wind industry? Every four months the Chinese will create a nuclear plant that can produce more power than all of the windmills and solar plants constructed in the US over the past 10 years. At a cost of less than $2 billion per gigawatt. For you mathematically challenged environmental types, that means less than 2 cents per kilowatthour production costs, as opposed to 30 cents for California's brainless solar roofs, or 20 cents for the "more efficient" solar thermal plants, located in the sunniest location on the planet. As you can see, when the truth emerges, alternative energy technologies are shown to be ridulous ways of producing unreliable, uncontrollable power. It's appropriate that California is now fiscally bankrupt - they've been mentally bankrupt for years.

Leave a comment