rssMcCain To Visit Michigan Nuke Plant
Tuesday, August 05, 2008 at 9:46 am
- 2 Comments
RAPID CITY, S.D. — With a scheduled tour of the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in southeastern Michigan, between Detroit and Toledo, Sen. John McCain’s day today will be all about nuclear power. McCain has pledged to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, which he says will create 700,000 jobs. He has also frequently criticized his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, as recently as last night, for being "against nuclear power" — an assertion that was discredited by FactCheck.org. Sensing a chance to head off McCain’s criticism today, the Obama campaign released a statement on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s position this morning. Here is part of it:
Barack Obama supports safe and secure nuclear energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, Obama thinks key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage and proliferation.
The McCain campaign likely chose the Fermi Generating Station as the site for its nuclear plant photo-op because, perhaps most important, it is in the swing state of Michigan, where McCain has been spending a lot of time recently. This is his third visit to the greater Detroit area since the beginning of July. Second, the owner of the Fermi plant, DTE Energy, is in the process of applying for a permit to build a new plant, adjacent to the current one. McCain will almost certainly point to the Fermi plant as an example of why the United States must rapidly expand its use of nuclear energy and streamline the application process for the construction of new reactors.
However, the plant also serves as a reminder of some of the past dangers of nuclear power. It was the site of a "partial fuel meltdown" in 1966 at its original reactor, which was decommissioned in 1975. The meltdown did not result in any fatalities. More recently, DTE Energy reported an "unusual event" in 2005, when a hole and several indentations were found in a steam pipe. These would probably be good issues to raise with the Arizona senator during his visit, but most of the traveling press will spend their visit to the facility in a holding room, while McCain tours the plant accompanied by a few pool reporters — and he is not expected to take questions.
Yes, this is again about the media’s lack of access to the "Straight Talk" candidate.
2 Comments
Comment posted August 5, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
McCain’s plan is to increase Nuke plants to “Reduce our demand for foreign oil” – Tell me, do ANY of our LARGE power plants use any oil as fuel ??? Hummm. Again we have the choice to vote for scary and scary. Until his comments about tire pressure not helping fuel economy and this about Nukes for oil, I actually thought he was the lesser of 2 evils… now I question this.
Tell me better, why neither of them want us to have the option f driving small diesel cars like the rest of the world does ? 60 – 70 MPG and they meet EURO 5/6 – an emission requirement harder than our Tier 2 BIN 5. Every expert will tell you diesel is 40% more efficient and that low tire pressure will cost as much as driving 70 mph vs. 55 mph.
From the Government’s site, almost 17% of our e-power is from diesel generators, but these have an average of 17M watts each, vs. 1,015M watts for the average Nuke plant… So I guess the plan is to replace all these small diesel generators in Alaska and other remote locations with HUGE Nuke plants 100 times as large. If their small size and remote location did not make it economical to do a cheaper running coal plant, why Nuke ??? Scary.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri…a/epat2p2.html
Comment posted August 5, 2008 @ 7:15 am
McCain's plan is to increase Nuke plants to “Reduce our demand for foreign oil” – Tell me, do ANY of our LARGE power plants use any oil as fuel ??? Hummm. Again we have the choice to vote for scary and scary. Until his comments about tire pressure not helping fuel economy and this about Nukes for oil, I actually thought he was the lesser of 2 evils… now I question this.
Tell me better, why neither of them want us to have the option f driving small diesel cars like the rest of the world does ? 60 – 70 MPG and they meet EURO 5/6 – an emission requirement harder than our Tier 2 BIN 5. Every expert will tell you diesel is 40% more efficient and that low tire pressure will cost as much as driving 70 mph vs. 55 mph.
From the Government's site, almost 17% of our e-power is from diesel generators, but these have an average of 17M watts each, vs. 1,015M watts for the average Nuke plant… So I guess the plan is to replace all these small diesel generators in Alaska and other remote locations with HUGE Nuke plants 100 times as large. If their small size and remote location did not make it economical to do a cheaper running coal plant, why Nuke ??? Scary.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri…a/epat2p…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
