Comments on: McCain To Visit Michigan Nuke Plant

By: arbo

arbo — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:15:39 +0000

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...

By: arbo

arbo — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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