McCain Hearts Nukes

It strikes me as a bit odd that John McCain's climate change speech seems so focused on the need for nuclear power. Talking a lot about nukes in this context is a good move for, say, a pundit so there's always a healthy amount of demand for "counterintuitive" arguments like "environmentalists are the ones responsible for global warming!" But politically, what's the percentage in this?

Realistically, one assumes that any viable climate change bill is going to need to be backed by as broad a coalition as possible, so that probably means cutting nuclear in on the deal whether or not it's really warranted. Personally, I'd prefer to end our subsidies to coal, oil, and gas then implement cap and trade and then make due without any subsidies for other sources -- not nuclear, not solar, not anything -- above and beyond the large implicit subsidy of the carbon cap.

But all that's quibbling over details. What I'd really like to hear from McCain is about a different departure from environmental orthodoxy -- why, if he believes that global warming is a real problem that we should tackle by reducing carbon emissions, has he written a bill that doesn't reduce emissions enough to tackle the problem? Presumably McCain's belief about the nature of the problem comes from the same scientific sources as everyone else's -- so why's he endorsing half-measures? Certainly if half-measures are the best you can get out of the legislative process a president should accept that, but why would you start with an inadequate long-term goal?

Photo by Flickr user ilker used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I think the unfortunate truth is that nuclear is going to be the only way to make serious climate inroads for a long time. Solar and wind can't even come close to doing what we need.

Posted by Rock On | May 12, 2008 12:12 PM

Maybe the simple truth is that this is one of the very few areas--the only area?--where people like John McCain are right on ways to fight climate change and liberals are wrong. The knee-jerk ignorant left-wing fear of nuclear power really, truly is handicapping efforts to make our energy more green. Nuclear power is efficient and reliable and puts out exactly zero air pollution.

Posted by Vidor | May 12, 2008 12:15 PM

Maybe the simple truth is that this is one of the very few areas--the only area?--where people like John McCain are right on ways to fight climate change and liberals are wrong. The knee-jerk ignorant left-wing fear of nuclear power really, truly is handicapping efforts to make our energy more green. Nuclear power is efficient and reliable and puts out exactly zero air pollution.

Posted by Vidor | May 12, 2008 12:16 PM

Maybe the simple truth is that this is one of the very few areas--the only area?--where people like John McCain are right on ways to fight climate change and liberals are wrong. The knee-jerk ignorant left-wing fear of nuclear power really, truly is handicapping efforts to make our energy more green. Nuclear power is efficient and reliable and puts out exactly zero air pollution.

Posted by Vidor | May 12, 2008 12:16 PM

It strikes me as a bit odd that John McCain's climate change speech seems so focused on the need for nuclear power.

John McCain's support for climate change legislation is proportional to the amount of subsidies for the nuclear power lobby.

David Roberts wrote:

Relative to what's offered by other Senate cap-and-trade bills (and the plans of his Democratic rivals), the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act -- even in its 2007 incarnation -- is weak. Unlike other such bills, McCain's specifically sets aside massive and unnecessary subsidies for the nuclear industry.
...
He has not signed onto the Sanders legislation, or even Lieberman's new bill. He has not said whether he'll vote for it, and has hinted ($ub. rqd) that he'll vote Nay unless big buckets of nuclear pork are added.

According to an analysis by US PIRG and Public Citizen, that's $3.7 Billion in nuclear subsidies alone. That's why the lobbyists surrounding John McCain are supporting him; pushing for an boondoggle that will be a boon for them.

Posted by Aaron | May 12, 2008 12:18 PM

While I don't believe nuclear power is evil per se, its worth pointing out that building nuclear power plants is expensive and takes a long while to build. While nuclear energy might give us a leg up in the future, its not a substitution for conservation today. Also, Senator McCain doesn't address the aging, dilapidated US power grid.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 12, 2008 12:26 PM

Nuclear power is efficient and reliable and puts out exactly zero air pollution.

Got a response to d-squared's points? In particular:

the nuclear lobby systematically puts out estimates of the efficiency and safety of its industry which are genuinely laughable, even by the standards of long-dated projections in general. They always, until their backs are absolutely forced up against the wall, give projections which are based on the perfect nuclear project which exists in their mind rather than anything that could actually be built. They tend to assume that every stage, from putting a fence round the site to lowering the rods, will be completed in the most efficient way possible, rather ignoring the fact that the typical big construction project looks a lot more like Wembley Stadium, and nuclear power stations are more complicated.

(Followed up by this on more specific issues with the technology and raw materials required for nuclear power.)

Given the point above about massive amounts of nuclear pork, can't we assume that the $3.7bn is just a downpayment on a much larger subsidy to an industry with a bullshit problem?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 12, 2008 12:33 PM

"Nuclear power is efficient and reliable and puts out exactly zero air pollution."

Look, I'm all for increasing our use of nuclear, but it would be nice if people would stop parroting the nuke industry's bullshit propaganda.

For one thing, the long-term risk of storage to avoid groundwater pollution still hasn't been dealt with. But more importantly, enriched uranium isn't delivered to nuclear plants by magic unicorns. The mining and enrichment process causes a substantial amount of air and water pollution which the nuke industry likes to omit when touting the magical pollution-free wonders of nuclear power.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 12, 2008 12:36 PM

Nuclear power is a good baseload source for energy supply. Roughly half of our electricity comes from pollutant heavy coal. What replaces that? Sources like solar and wind cannot generate the amount of power needed. The main reason France has reduced its CO2 emissions is that it uses a lot of nuclear power. Renewables make the most sense as an intermittent supply of energy during periods of peak demand.

From an electricity perspective I think nuclear is necessary. You must also continue developing technologies for carbon capture sequestration and renwables such as wind and solar. Even if the success is limited on those fronts.

Power is just one of three componenets. You also have to tackle industrial emissions (probably through cap and trade) and decrease auto emissions via plug-ins, fuel cells and other advanced technologies.

Nuclear power is by no means the only solution to the nation's energy and evironmental needs but it is part of it.

Posted by Ben | May 12, 2008 12:42 PM

I think McCain has done a pretty good job of talking sensibly in the last few days about energy/environment matters and about torture. (Much better than the gas tax holiday.)

We really are all better off and we will have smarter politics if both McCain and Obama can be rewarded for taking up non-crazy positions on serious issues in the general election campaign.

Posted by Psittakos | May 12, 2008 12:46 PM

Nuclear power is a perfectly viable alternative for the next few decades, which is how long it will take to develop any real alternative to coal fired power plants.

I think McCain and Obama are both supportive of new nuclear plants, which is a good thing. Edwards was the only one against them, and Hillary of course was for or against depending on the audience and context.

Posted by TH | May 12, 2008 1:06 PM

Nuclear power is a poor baseload source for energy supply. Despite currently spending billions of dollars in subsidies, nuclear power plants still cannot be built quickly or generate power efficiently enough to be as vast a source of energy as John McCain says it is.

There can not be enough nuclear power plants built in the next few decades to act as the magical solution that he says they can be. His plan will shift resources away from other solutions.

Posted by Aaron | May 12, 2008 1:10 PM

Unless the world's population drops drastically, nuclear is the only way we can produce energy on the scale needed without filling the air with CO2.

The safety problems with today's pressurized light water reactors can largely be overcome by using fast neutron reactors. For those interested, a Google search will yield tons of info.

Posted by kafka | May 12, 2008 1:13 PM

I suspect McCain's position is nothing more complicated than a tactic to allow righties to feel like their sticking it to at least some segment of the left, even while they act on climate change. How do we make climate change legislation manly enough for Republicans? With muthafuckin nukes, baby. Hell yeah!

Posted by J.B. | May 12, 2008 1:34 PM

p.s. their = they're. I blame Matt for that.

Posted by J.B. | May 12, 2008 1:35 PM

***Got a response to d-squared's points?***

No, since they're nothing but incoherent ranting.

***it would be nice if people would stop parroting the nuke industry's bullshit propaganda.***

The statement that you quoted is factual. I am sorry if that displeases you.

***enriched uranium isn't delivered to nuclear plants by magic unicorns. The mining and enrichment process causes a substantial amount of air and water pollution which the nuke industry likes to omit when touting the magical pollution-free wonders of nuclear power***

This is just silly. We might as well condemn solar power as a pollutant because the trucks which carry solar panels from the factory to the plant construction site emit pollutants from their exhaust pipes. Also, it is of course true that once a power plant is fueled, it requires no further fuel for many years. And once it is running, the only "waste product" it produces is heat. No carbon. No nitrous oxides. Nothing in the air. Zero.

Posted by Vidor | May 12, 2008 1:37 PM

Ah, got it, Vidor. You're working in the happy shiny nuclear power industry.

Nuclear power involves fine tolerances on large construction projects, and its promoters have a history of understating the cost. Your response? 'Look over there!'

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 12, 2008 1:48 PM

This is what Obama's energy plan has to say about nuclear energy:

"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 from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R -- IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.

Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there."

Posted by Psittakos | May 12, 2008 1:49 PM

By producing about 800 billion kWh last year, the US nuclear power industry consumed about $4 billion worth of uranium -- and deprived government of at least that much natural gas revenue, for producing the same electricity with natural gas would have run a gas bill near $40 billion. (This year it will be more like $3 billion and $60 billion.)

People who live off government cheques, or direct deposits, tend to underestimate how sensitive their compatriots are to this, and to frequent accidents. They know when you say wind, solar, and conservation, you mean gas, and every few tens of millions of dollars in government gas revenue means one of them dies.

Posted by G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | May 12, 2008 1:54 PM

There may well be *significant* questions about whether nuclear waste can be stored safely at Yucca Mountain -- or at plant sites -- but there are no *honest* questions about this. Everyone seems to understand that nuclear waste is not a genuine concern when it's their own skin that must be near either it, or equivalent fossil fuel power; so, for instance, Greenpeace contractors quietly get on board a nuclear icebreaker when they could insist on a diesel. They know nuclear is safer, as does everyone here.

The anonymous attack on Vidor was utterly contemptible.

Posted by G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996 | May 12, 2008 2:00 PM

Nuclear is the only energy source that has enough oomph to keep the engines turning. (Recent convert to the nuclear cause.)

But the long lead time to build plants, even assuming the entrenched opposition to nukes could be wished away, might make nukes irrelevant to forestalling whatever catastrophe might be in store due to AGW. (If the low end of the IPCC predictions is the worst, we'll escape with drought, sweaty summers and short winters. Not a bad cost for the pleasure of AC and brightly lit houses. The mid to worst scenarios are pretty grim, though.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 12, 2008 2:13 PM

"The statement that you quoted is factual."

Glad to see we've definitively established that Vidor lives in a land filled with magic unicorns.

No, the fact is that the production of energy from nuclear power causes substantial amounts of air and water pollution during the mining and processing phases. It is also true that solar power plants and windmills are not created by magical pollution-free processes. The point is that all of these factors need to be taken into consideration when we assess the environmental impact of our energy choices.

The statement that nuclear power "puts out exactly zero air pollution" is a contemptible lie and the people who say it are liars. I'm sorry if that displeases you.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 12, 2008 3:56 PM

2 big changes need to happen to speed up the Nuclear Industry.

1. We absolutely need to re-legalize Fuel Reprocessing. When the most dangerous waste is also the best source of energy, we've done the stupidest thing and decided to try and bury it instead of reusing it.

2. Need to somehow cut back all the years of paperwork and legal/court battles involved with building a plant. 25 years of barriers put in place by Greenpeace and such have done nothing but slowed down Nuclear to a stand-still. We need to find a way to reduce this.

Notice both of these problems are solved politically, and will lead to a true Nuclear rennisance, which leads to energy independence.

Posted by Evinfuilt | May 12, 2008 4:21 PM

Those cracking on solar power in this thread are behind the times. The fact is, solar power plants are relatively cheap and easy to build and highly competitive on cost per kWh with gas, coal, and nuclear. Just the slightest push on the market, either in the form of increased subsidies to solar, reduced subsidies to fossil fuels, carbon cap and trade, or whatever we end up with will make solar power the obvious choice for the entire southern half of the US.

As for the original question about why McCain, when speaking on climate change, goes out of his way to hype nuclear, I believe this approach shows just how unserious he is about this issue. He talks a good game on climate change and so gets credit on the issue from liberals and from the press. The public then comes to think that he's not so bad on environmental issues. And thus he gets to the point where he can say whatever he wants on the subject, which usually is something to appease a right-wing constituency.

"My friends, climate change is an important issue, and that's why prayer in school should be mandatory."

Posted by Rob Mac | May 12, 2008 4:41 PM

What are the power requirements to enrich uranium up to fuel grade? That's a chunk of overhead that needs to be taken into account.

If we are going to ramp up our nuclear power program, we should outsource it to France or Japan. People might like to blame Greenpeace and the like, but I'll blame the industry that couldn't build a plant without 150% cost overruns and years of delays.

Posted by daveNYC | May 12, 2008 4:49 PM

Where's the sense of practicality? In one post, Matthew gripes about people driving, in the next he wrings his hands over satanic nuclear energy.

If sprawl is a problem in the US transportation and traffic sectors, then it certainly is in electricity generation. I believe coal, gas, and nuclear plants should be cited smack in the center of major metro areas. Not only is less lost via overland transmission wires, but the secondary energy generated -- heat -- could be utilized.

That's right. You city folks should build your own power plants and huddle closely around them in winter. Then you can leave us well-armed bucolic bumpkins alone with all your zeal to tax and regulate. ;-)

Posted by MarkG | May 12, 2008 5:26 PM

Nuclear power definitely needs to be a significant part of any CO2 reduction plan for the United States. The fact is that we currently generate about 50 percent of our energy using coal - one of the dirtiest, most dangerous fuel sources there is. Nuclear must be compared to that, not to some hypothetical perfect alternative. In every way that I can see, nuclear is a better choice than coal. And any large-scale nuclear solution is going to have to involve reprocessing of spent fuel, so we'd better get working on a way to do this safely and effectively.

Solar power can also play an important role. Think of the massive load on electrical grids generated by air conditioners in the summer - just at the same time as the sun is shining bright overhead. The widespread deployment of rooftop solar panels could help millions of Americans save money on their electrical bills and help the environment at the same time. The use of federal funds to kick-start this program would be well worth it.

Posted by Josh G. | May 12, 2008 8:17 PM

I'm not an expert but I've read a bit into the subject so I'm going to poke at a few items.

Nuclear is not pollution free if you include the entire cycle from fuel production to plant construction. Then again neither is anything else. Speaking strictly in terms of CO2 output nuclear power, even inefficient American nuclear power, is competative with the cleanest sources and is above and beyond any as a base load power supply (aka a power supply that can provide a constant consistent flow of power.)

Nuclear power has serious pollution issues. Mining nuclear fuel can be hazardous if it is done carelessly. This has been somewhat exagerated of course since we've been kindof stop and go on the subject of mass mining for nuclear fuel. It is entirely possible to mine the fuel safely using standards and regulation etc.

Nuclear plants ARE hard and lengthy to build. I'd hazard to guess that a good two thirds of that difficulty is legal and social in nature. Rampant NIMBYism and incredible quantities of red tape are to blame for much of it. Still even if we really got our butts in gear it'd take a while to get new plants going. That said, the more plants we build the more we'd learn about building them and the better (and cheaper) we'd get at it. The Canadians and the Russians have been stealing our lunch money on that subject for decades.

Nuclear safety and fuel storage is a canard. It's a problem for us because we insist on not re-using our fuel. The French and the Netherlands re-cycle their fuel. 70% of the baseload electricity in France is nuclear and there've been no chernobyls, not even a 3 mile island. If we allowed nuclear fuel to be reprocessed and re-used we wouldn't have to worry about Yucca. The downside to reprocessing is the concern that it involves materials that are much more easily weaponizable. That is true. Again you'd have to keep security tight, again I haven't read anything about anything like this being a huge problem for the French and they've been running on nukes for decades.

Nuclear plants gobble water. They love water. So we need to consider water quite carefully. In places like the Southeast, Southwest and west coast this could possibly make nuclear unfeasable (though then again they use most of their water for growing strawberries in the desert so maybe there's an issue of priorities there). In the great lakes watershead, though nuclear is perfectly suited for our needs. I've heard some theoretical models don't use water at all and also are rediculously safe, liquid salt reactors I believe. Not certain on that one.

Personal opinion here: our emotions over Nuclear are very very overblown. If global warming is a huge and serious issue, something I'm rather agnosticly skeptical about, then I really have trouble believing in the seriousness of people who discount it out of hand. For Matts position I think it seems fair to remove subsidies SO LONG as that would also include removing the impediments. If Matt wants no government subsidizing of nuke power fine, so long as he also is fine with the government removing all but the absolutely necessary safety regulations of the industry. Otherwise he's just against Nuclear power in a sly downlow way.

Posted by Minnesota | May 12, 2008 9:21 PM

I won't get into the endless and pointless nuke argument again, I'll just note that the notion that environmentalists are standing in the way of nuclear power is truly absurd. Crap, I wish enviros had that kind of power. The fact is, nuclear plants are huge, they take a long time to build, historically they always run far over cost, they run into local opposition every time, and consequently, private capital won't touch them with a ten foot pole. Juice them with all the subsidies you won't -- you won't attract private capital and thus you won't get anywhere in the neighborhood of the plant a week we'd have to build to substantially dent the carbon problem.

(Also: concentrated solar plants are already cost competitive with coal in some areas, and once there's a price on carbon they will vault ahead. The whole "solar can't do it" canard is a piece of moldy conventional wisdom that people really should stop parroting.)

Posted by David Roberts | May 12, 2008 11:38 PM

David: Solar power produces electricity, yes, and it's inching its' way towards being viable too yes. But solar power can not produce baseline power for a very simple reason. Baseline power needs to be pretty much constant. Solar power suffers from a serious flaw from a baseline perspective: the sun goes down. For producing the baseline power needs of a society you need a power source that you can rely on through thick or thin. Currently that is coal and oil. Nuclear is technically capable of filling the same role. Solar is not.

This is not to say Solar isn't feasable. It is or nearly is. It just can't produce power when there's no sun about, or it produces less on on a rainy day. Same problem with wind. You're dependant on the inconsistancies of weather.

Environmentalists are a good part of opposition to nuclear power, yes. They sway public opinion and lobby on the subject of policy. I'd agree with you though that NIMBYism is by far the bigger enemy of any kind of power plant. But even Nimby's like a fig leaf and the environment is a favorite. You can be sure that the plight of the fluff-breasted desert grouse or the endangered migratory sea swallow shall materialize very quickly the moment one begin proposing solar farms or wind farms in people's locales. Look at Kennedy.

Posted by Minnesota | May 13, 2008 11:25 AM

David: Solar power produces electricity, yes, and it's inching its' way towards being viable too yes. But solar power can not produce baseline power for a very simple reason. Baseline power needs to be pretty much constant. Solar power suffers from a serious flaw from a baseline perspective: the sun goes down. For producing the baseline power needs of a society you need a power source that you can rely on through thick or thin. Currently that is coal and oil. Nuclear is technically capable of filling the same role. Solar is not.

This is not to say Solar isn't feasable. It is or nearly is. It just can't produce power when there's no sun about, or it produces less on on a rainy day. Same problem with wind. You're dependant on the inconsistancies of weather.

Environmentalists are a good part of opposition to nuclear power, yes. They sway public opinion and lobby on the subject of policy. I'd agree with you though that NIMBYism is by far the bigger enemy of any kind of power plant. But even Nimby's like a fig leaf and the environment is a favorite. You can be sure that the plight of the fluff-breasted desert grouse or the endangered migratory sea swallow shall materialize very quickly the moment one begin proposing solar farms or wind farms in people's locales. Look at Kennedy.

Posted by Minnesota | May 13, 2008 11:28 AM

I shouldn't have to do this however I only have a high school education and I have to remind people that Obama is for the same (bleeping) things. Obama is from a state that is power by Nuclear Power Plants. If Obama said the same things you would be spinning backwards in glee. This is more reason my college is becoming irrelevant.

Posted by Jibreel Riley | May 13, 2008 2:53 PM