The second part in this series will focus on the Obama, the man that was too good to pick a woman as a running mate; but now, let's take a look at McCain, the man that pulled a beauty queen with a pockmarked reputation out of his you-know-where.
The killjoy to any good Young Republican rant is the Obama supporter's infamous factoid: Though John McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, he was 894th out of 899 people in his class, not to mention he lost five jets while in the military.
It's hard to dispute something like this when you take a look at select parts of his energy plan, namely the clause about nuclear power.
John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
JohnMcCain.com
I'm sorry, I was doubled up on floor after I read this. By the time I was back on the chair soundly, I felt insulted. Let's break this down. Hammer Time.
Skipping the horribly capitalized title, nuclear power is, in fact, not zero-emission. Nor is any way of making electricity. Don't get me wrong. The actual process of making nuclear power is far more eco-friendly than the other ways. According to the Energy Information Administration, nuclear power generates 3.1 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour while hydroelectric power produces 11 grams, 600 grams for natural gas, 900 grams for oil, and 950 grams for coal burning.
What this doesn't consider is the CO2 it takes to do all the behind the scenes things. Nuclear plants are made of very big pieces of machinery and a lot of large-scale transportation, not to mention mining and enriching the fuels. Don't worry it's still lower than most, but not by nearly as much as you'd think. Leading chemist Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen says that the whole nuclear process could emit from 80 to 480 grams per kilowatt-hour, up to almost 160 times what many think.
That myth disproved, let's move on.
The countries mentioned all have something in common. They are all rapidly expanding and two of them are providing electricity to some areas for the first time. The United States already has an energy infrastructure to work off of. China and India each both have more than three times the population of the U.S. McCain's website makes it sound like we're running behind in the nuclear industry, but actually, we're still the world's largest producer of nuclear power. No. No we shouldn't be able to do the same.
Now it's time for the chuckle.
Forty-five new plants by 2030. Considering there are 66 plants operating as of the beginning of 2008, the eventual goal of 100 new plants sounds like a a good idea. That would make nuclear energy the main way the U.S. would get its power.
However, comma...
Unless the price tag for nuclear power plants, this solution from the McCain campaign is an outright fairy tale. As a reference, the Olkiluoto power plant that is slated to go online in Finland next year, is priced at roughly $5.5 billion. This is top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art, something a McCain administration would argue America deserved. Keep in mind here: 100 of these in the next thirty years.
A little work on Wikipedia goes a long way.
Sources:
"Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States." CO2 Emission Report. July 2000. Energy Information Administration. 23 Sept. 2008 .
Van Leeuwen, Jan Willem Storm, and Philip Smith. "The CO2 Emission of the Nuclear Life-cycle."Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance. 2005.
A note:
Sorry about the shoddy MLA sources. I thought better few and bad than none.
