The purpose is not to build nuclear power plants or to drill offshore; the purpose is to construct action-oriented solutions full of apparent resolve which can be described within the time accorded to a sound bite.

And to offer up these quickie policy solutions to the Apathetic Voter who would rather not think too deeply about these issues, 'cause if they did, it would make their brains hurt.

Why aren't the Dems handing out empty gas cans imprinted with the slogan, "McCain promotes Paris Hilton's energy plan."

Dean Baker made good point about windfall profits taxes -- if we give oil companies more drilling rights then we should use a windfall profits tax in order to keep them to their promise that gas prices will fall as a result.

[sigh] You can never please everybody.

The nuclear waste storage issue is a palpable fraud. Nature has done the storage experiments for us. The waste generated by the Oklo natural fission reactions in Gabon (sixteen of them, in three locations) has remained in place and has been no danger to the surrounding environment for a billion and a half years, despite being in geological formations that human beings would consider far too unstable for storage of nuclear waste.

This has been known for nearly half a century now. It seems that some environmentalists only heed the example of Mother Nature when Mother Nature says what they like to hear.

When the history of global warming comes to be written, anti-nuke fanaticism will be right next to oil and coal company greed as a contributing factor. Greenpeace has not done as much damage as Exon-Mobil, not yet anyway, but their egotism and refusal to consider the example Nature providently provided for us is going to cost us dearly.

Hit McCain, he's an ass. But he's not some sort of dark god whose every pronouncement is automatically wrong. You've made an ass of yourself here.

Nuclear power advocates are so funny sometimes. The only time nuclear power is financially viable is when government helps foot the bill. Someone has to give them everything from land use rights for mining uranium, to land for waste storage. Always sluffing the cost off on someone else, be it contamination or taxes. Then you guys have the gall to call for free markets. Nuclear power is too expensive to privately produce and too expensive to clean up after the fact. The only reason it so attractive is because other countries with no scruples about dumping the waste on unsuspecting populations and governments willing to foot the bill, are doing it. Why can't we? Think of what would happen if the nuclear industry forgot about regulations the way mortgage companies have. Nuclear problems can't be fixed by throwing money at it, any more than democracy can be forced at gun point.

I haven't had Paris. When's my turn?

i really believe Paris had plenty of help with her little statement,don't you.
my point is that she appears to have much more going on than John Mlame . Must be better people in her world bubble ya think.
Just shows in a glaring way whats running around and bouncing about Mclame's little minded world.

I too have been waiting for somebody to ask McCain where he plans to put the nuclear waste from these 36 new Nuclear plants. Hell even where he is going to put these new plants, because I'm pretty sure nobody wants a Nuclear facility going up in the adjoining town. Everybody thinks it's a great idea until they realize it could be buried in their backyard. It's the whole NIBMY principle at work. Force him to say which State he wants to bury the matter in and don't let him cop out by saying that is up for the States to decide.

It's easy to throw out the "I wanna build x number of new Nuclear Power Plants" it's a little harder to get into the specifics of where and what you plan to do with the nuclear waste.

ROTWANG!!!!

I like the old av better too. :(

Nuclear reactions can produce massive amounts of energy...and of course a massive amount of other by-products too, none nearly as beneficial. It is a shame that we can't better utilize the nuclear reactor our solar system has provided for us free of cost...our Sun. Also it is too bad we have to use fission instead of fusion like the Sun does, c'est la vie...something about not having the technology for a man made vessel which could contain such a reaction. I am all for nuclear...that is when all the problematic questions about the 'little details' get answered.

I'd be interested in Ms. Hilton's thoughts on the issue. I am sure they would be more coherent and detailed than the Gabby Hayes (great nickname Rotwang, lol.) positions.

If nuclear energy is the way to the future, then good old American capitalism should be leading the way. Therefore, there would be no need for massive tax subsidies, etc. But American capitalism is not, so that says something.

President Bush and his industry allies have been busy making sure that government doesn't work, so even contaminated food which sickens hundreds cannot be easily traced. And to this regulatory legacy we are going to commit more nuclear power?

McCain made his speech at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power plant outside Detroit which had a near meltdown of its reactor in the 1960's. It is shut down, and only the successor nuclear power unit is operating.

I can just see McCain and Obama getting into a bidding war for Paris' script writer.

An awesome piece of work. It makes both candidates energy policies seem laughable.
.

Breeder reactors get rid of the waste problem. That's what the French do. They don't have a waste problem, because they have breeder reactors.

Reprocessing spent fuel gets rid of a lot of waste, but by no means all. There is residue, and eventually, the plants wear out and radioactive steel, concrete and other materials have to be disposed of. Plants also have periodic releases of radiation for various reasons, I have heard (not sure why - perhaps side effect of having steam boilers). Moving this stuff around means even more contamination must be managed (the containers used to haul fuel back and forth).

Reprocessing is not a snap. The material involved, uranium, is incredibly poisonous even if the radioactive isotopes aren't present, and plutonium is even worse (poisonous is presumably
applicable to all the actinides as heavy metals). This is part of the problem with the residue above too. You do not want your reprocessing run by low-bid amateurs, all the proven processes look very hairy and dangerous, with difficult chemical processing techniques required. I think the French system is a government run enterprise or GOCO and even there they have many accidents and problems. This is not to say it is a bad thing or cannot be done but it's not trivial. Google Tricastin and read up on this amazing site as well as the recent incident(s). If we get into this business we have to be prepared for it.

Incidentally, I remember a big debate about breeder reactors nearly 30 years ago. I think Ford (R) killed them off and it was debated and reaffirmed in the Carter (D) admin. And this was all some years BEFORE 3 Mile Island put the nails in the coffin of the nuclear power industry. Has something about reprocessing changed significantly? Or did we forget we have been to this movie? The other possibilities are that circumstances have changed and either people are looking for a way to deal with the waste better, or delay the uranium Hubbard's Peak.

This whole nuclear power discussion should point out that Obama was totally correct in advocating, instead, that we fill our tires properly. Yes, it sounds dumb, but we simply use far more energy per person than we need to use.

The easy steps to reducing our energy consumption haven't even been used yet. Properly inflate out tires. Buy fuel efficient vehicles. Raise the CAFE limits. Tax the Hell out of SUV's. Require solar panels on all new roofs. Cease production and sale of incandescent light bulbs. Prohibit commercial buildings from keeping all lights on 24/7. And on and on.

No nuclear waste to store because of those steps.

Like you, Rothead, I mean, Rotwang, My respect for her has grown by whips and chains.