Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

McCain Adopts Cheney's Energy Plan

By Jason Leopold, Consortium News. Posted August 12, 2008.


Once considered an ally of environmental groups, McCain now has a plan drafted by industry execs pushing more drilling and nuclear power.
Advertisement

John McCain, who once was regarded as a top Republican ally of the environmental movement, has embraced an energy plan nearly identical to Vice President Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy, which was drafted largely by industry executives and which pushed their desire for more oil drilling and nuclear power.

Now echoing those views, McCain declares repeatedly, "We need to drill here and we need to drill now." Beyond opening up large tracts of protected coastal waters for oil exploration, McCain has called for a massive expansion of nuclear power.

"If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America," McCain said during a campaign stop at a nuclear power plant in Michigan on Tuesday.

McCain's current positions on offshore drilling and nuclear power dovetail with the policies of the Bush administration and mark a sharp break between major environmental groups and McCain, who previously used his environmental credentials as proof of his maverick ways.

As McCain abandoned his opposition to offshore drilling in June, Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall said McCain "is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn't."

The Sierra Club, which is considered the oldest and largest environmental organization, has even begun running ads criticizing McCain and favoring Barack Obama.

With McCain's reversal on offshore drilling and his vocal support of nuclear energy, he now is pretty much in sync with Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force of 2001, which called for more aggressive oil exploration, including in environmentally sensitive areas, and "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy."

Cheney's energy plan, as it turned out, was largely written by executives of major energy companies, including Ken Lay and other top officials of the now defunct Enron Corp., which was particularly interested in energy price deregulation.

When Enron imploded in a wave of accounting scandals in late 2001 documents surfaced revealing the company's behind-the-scenes role in drafting Cheney's energy plan. It also was discovered that Enron was part of a scheme to create artificial electricity shortages in California in early 2001 to jack up rates.

The embarrassing revelations helped derail Cheney's legislative package in Congress. But the Bush administration and the energy industry kept pressing for approval of various parts of the plan, such as expanded nuclear power by pitching it as a "green" energy option that doesn't produce carbon dioxide.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a powerful industry lobby, spent $680,000 during the first half of 2007 lobbying the White House, Congress, the Energy Department and other federal agencies, according to a disclosure form filed with the Senate's public records office.

Among the key lobbyists for nuclear power were the NEI's Tom Loeffler, a former Republican congressman and Cheney's longtime friend, and Nancy Dorn, who worked as a congressional liaison for Cheney and later became a lobbyist for General Electric. The lobbying appears to have paid off as McCain is now making nuclear energy a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

Bush's Advisers

McCain's shifts on energy policies also came as he brought onboard advisers who had previously helped the Bush administration craft its energy agenda.

One of McCain's advisers on energy policy has been David Conover, the former principal deputy assistant secretary office of policy and international affairs at the Energy Department. In 2005, Conover briefed members of Congress about the Bush administration's plan for reviving the dormant nuclear power industry.

"Concerns over... climate change suggest a larger role for nuclear power as an energy supply choice," Conover told a Senate Commerce subcommittee. "The Nuclear Power 2010 program is working with industry to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s new [streamlined] licensing process."

NP2010 became one of Cheney's pet energy projects, as he pressed aggressively to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed up approval and licensing for nuclear plants.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nuclear, energy, cheney, mccain, oil drilling

Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Paris Hilton has the best energy plan?
Posted by: progressive-life on Aug 12, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am surprised and disappointed that the best energy policy seems to come from Paris Hilton!

I admit that after over 35 years we as a country have not yet gotten the message. You can't beat mother nature. Oil is a limited resource and is controlled by a small group hell bent on extracting the maximum amount they can for it. What is it we dont understand about this.

But the answer is not drilling in sensitive areas in this country, nor is it Nuke power. France may have a huge success with nuke power but it's a much smaller country and requires less overall energy.

I'd rather pay $4/gal and keep what ever sensitive areas we have left untouched than tear up whats left of nature!

I'm shocked at McCains position on this and equally shocked that Obama has no better plan than inflate your tires - but I think overall he is more realistic in the long term. In the short term we just have to suck it up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pat McCrory likely part of this
Posted by: rhibowman on Aug 12, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Charlotte's Mayor and North Carolina (Republican) Gubernatorial candidate, Pat McCrory was appointed by Bush to sit on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He is also a Duke Energy executive-- or was until Feb. 29 of this year. He is a huge proponent of Nuclear Energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's energy message to Putin
Posted by: blondesprite on Aug 12, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he leans in and whispers..Dude..the media is talking about impeachment again and my boy McCain's campain is in trouble (McCain 42%, Obama 49.9%). We need a 3a.m. (911-type) diversion, we will sacrifice Georgia's oil pipeline and trade you Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear fuel is recyclable.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 16, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Generatiuon 4 reactors use up all the "waste".
The so-called "waste" in Yucca Mountain is
fuel for centuries. Nuclear power is 30%
cheaper than coal and 100% safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear fuel is recyclable
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 17, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What am I bid for Yucca Mountain "waste"?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 17, 2008 5:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What am I bid for all the "waste" in Yucca Mountain? On an
open market, an emperor's ransom. How does Israel fuel their
nuclear power plants and obtain plutonium for their bombs? By
stealing fuel from the reprocessing cycles of other countries that
tried to keep Israel from having a nuclear program. How many
other countries would be willing to bid if they could? All of
those that don't have nuclear power now. What would Iran be
willing to pay for the contents of Yucca Mountain? Yucca
Mountain must be guarded carefully or it will be stolen from. If
Americans do not understand the value of the so-called "waste"
there are 6 billion other people who do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The choices are: Either extinction OR nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 17, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

14.7 Million tons of CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 17, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal fired power plants put 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every
year for each 1000 Megawatts generated for one year. Nuclear plants put ZERO
CO2 into the air. The CO2 cost of building coal vs. nuclear is the same and
negligible. The CO2 cost of mining and transporting coal is large and not
included in the 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. The mining and transportation
cost of nuclear fuel is zero since Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be
reprocessed and put back into reactors. Each 1000 Megawatts of nuclear power
needs so little uranium that you could easily carry an equal weight in a suitcase.
Burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal makes 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. As I
have pointed out many times, burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal puts enough
U235 into the air and cinders to fuel a nuclear plant, or enough uranium +
thorium to fuel hundreds of nuclear plants if breeding is allowed. There is no
way to get there from here without nuclear power, like it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Natural Background Radiation
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 17, 2008 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]