McCain and His Fake Energy Plan

Never Fear
[Never Fear! Fuelman is Here!]

Buried in an article about Obama’s call for releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserves is a succinct summary of McCain’s nonsensical energy plan.

Obama emphasized on Monday that using reserves is a temporary fix and that drilling is not “a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution.” McCain has said that drilling would have a “psychological” benefit for consumers; his proposal to suspend the 18-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax was ignored by lawmakers on Capitol Hill and criticized by economists, who said it would not lead to a noticeable change in prices.

On the stump, McCain talks frequently about electric power, a subject that energy experts say will do little to affect gas prices. His plan to build 45 nuclear power plants, which he will highlight with a visit to a Michigan plant Tuesday, would take decades.

[From Obama Urges Opening Up Oil Reserves – washingtonpost.com]

Gas costs update

gas price breakdown

Psychological benefit? Really? I’m not sure consumers would worry less about high gasoline prices knowing that oil corporations have the ability to drill for oil sometime in the future. And nuclear plants to be completed long after Senator McCain is deceased will help lower gas prices how exactly? Any specifics about where these plants are going to be located? In a convenient location that nobody would complain about, I’m sure. Show me these 45 new locations on a map, please.

(H/T a letter in Altercation by Ben Miller)
Gas At Last
[Gas At Last – Alaskan Service Station]

Nuclear Power Costs

Still don’t think giving tax breaks to the Exelons1 of the world to build nuclear plants is the answer to our energy woes.

Satanic Gift

Even if no new reactors are built, getting rid of the country’s nuclear waste will cost $96.2 billion and require a major expansion of the planned Nevada waste dump beyond limits imposed by Congress, the Energy Department said. The government now says the Yucca Mountain project, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, will cost $38.7 billion more than was anticipated in 2001, when the department estimated the life cycle cost of the program at $57.5 billion.

[From High Cost Seen on Nuclear Dump ]

Oh, what’s a few billion between lobbyist friends. Or $38,700,000,000 in this case.

The estimates cover waste only from existing reactors and from the military.

And if we don’t figure out how to dispose of the waste safely, we’ll regret it eventually. Dumping the entire region’s toxic waste under a mountain isn’t really a solution, just a cover-up.

Footnotes:
  1. our local power company, and a large operator of nuclear plants []