Foreign energy 'sources'

McCain's crooked talk on nuclear power

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 9:36 AM on 21 Mar 2008

Read more about: politics | presidential race 08 | John McCain | nuclear power | energy

This week John McCain has an article in the Financial Times: "America must be a good role model." It has two paragraphs on the need for leadership on greenhouse gas reductions but endorses only one low-carbon energy source:

Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.

That dependence, I am afraid, has become a vulnerability for both the US and Europe and a source of leverage for the oil and gas exporting autocracies.

You can tell a politician is being wishy-washy when he or she uses the phrase "dependence on foreign energy sources." There is really only one foreign energy source Americans care much about -- oil. It comes from unstable and undemocratic regions, and our trade deficit in it now exceeds $1 billion a day.

But nuclear power can't significantly reduce US oil consumption or imports -- because very, very little electricity in this country is generated by burning petroleum (only 1.6 percent of electricity in 2006 came from oil). [In the future that could change when a significant number of vehicles on the road substitute electricity for gasoline, but that is not imminent.]

And since McCain presumably knows that, he uses the catch-all phrase "foreign energy sources" to try to make it look like nuclear power is homegrown and patriotic. But is it? In fact, we import the vast majority of the uranium we use [PDF], so it is an even bigger "foreign energy source."

McCain also cleverly throws in a second sentence that links America to the European vulnerability to leverage from Russia's large natural gas exports. Yet as the U.S. EIA notes, "net natural gas imports equaled 16 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption, a ratio that has remained relatively stable in the past 8 years." Moreover, most of that comes from Canada, by pipeline. Hardly a worrisome dependence.

What about uranium? Well just last month the Bush administration signed a remarkable deal:

The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday….

The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free.

So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.

I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent."

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Foreign energy 'sources'
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Think Ahead

Technically, it is correct that nuclear does not displace oil. However, in the time frame that new nuclear becomes available (5 plus years from now) plug in hybrid or full electric cars should be commonly available. Also, on the natural gas side, replacement of gas heating by geothermal heat pumps may eliminate the need to go to large scale LNG imports from overseas.

by KenG at 10:30 AM on 21 Mar 2008

Really?

$650,000 Fine Urged for Indian Point Owner
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of 10 times the normal size against the owner of the Indian Point reactors because it missed a deadline to install new emergency warning sirens with backup power supplies.
(NYT Jan252008)

Citing Past Troubles at Indian Point, State Urges Panel to Deny License Extension
By J SULLIVAN and M. L. WALD;
State officials claim that the nuclear reactors in Westchester County are vulnerable to a terrorist attack and that the surrounding area could not be evacuated if an accident occurred.
(NYT Dec42007)

September 5, 2006

Nuclear Power Plant Security Officers in Texas Reprimanded for Trying to Provide Security.
Lax Security Puts the Public at Risk WASHINGTON, September 5--A new study released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) details a massive breakdown of security at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant near Houston, Texas. According to the report, vehicles enter protected areas of the reactor unsearched, surveillance cameras don't work, and the cleaning staff has easy access to firearms. Security officers at the nuclear plant have alerted supervisors to these problems only to have their concerns ignored and the supervisors retaliate against them.
(Union of Concerned Scientists)

K East Basin goes dry, eliminates top risk to river -- Publishd: Friday March 21 2008
Hanford's leak-prone K East Basin is dry for the first time since production of plutonium began at the reactor during the Cold War. "That's an achievement," said Larry Gadbois, environmental scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the K Basins. Less than two months ago the basin, which is 400 yards from the Columbia River, held 1 million gallons of radioactive water. Although more cleanup work remains to be done at the K Basins, including treating radioactive sludge for disposal and cleaning up contaminated soil beneath the basins, removal of the water eliminates a major risk to the river. "The driving force - the water pressure - has been eliminated," said Dave Brockman, manager of the Department of Energy's Hanford Richland Operations Office. Not only was the water contaminated, but more leaks would have driven contamination already in the soil toward the ground water moving toward the river. Work began more than six years ago to remove 1,100 tons of irradiated nuclear
(hanfordnews.com)

LOS ANGELES, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The Cooper Nuclear Station in Nebraska run by Entergy Nuclear will undergo extra scrutiny from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission after commission staff found a violation regarding a backup diesel generator, the NRC said on Monday.
(Aug212007)

Some good has eventually come of the accident at chernobyl, scientists are studying the grossly mutated conifer trees that are growing there now.

We are not NEARLY ready to responsibly operate and maintain these facilities safely, much less handle and dispose of the waste materials. And can you imagine if those airplanes had headed for Indian Point Nuclear plant instead of the towers?

by morganmghee at 3:50 PM on 21 Mar 2008

How about plug-in hybrids?

Plug-in hybrids offer a way to use electricity to power personal transportation. But many of the models will probably be made outside the U.S. (Japan, Mexico, China, Brazil, etc.). Shouldn't the use of these foreign-built cars then be considered foreign energy sources too, even if they run on home-grown electricity?

by meander at 5:14 PM on 21 Mar 2008

Lots of tech is foreign.

If we were to get hung up on foreign/domestic then we might reject wind/solar because much of the technology comes from the EU -or is manufactured in China. But of course St John is simply playing to homegrown xenophobia, which is a very strong political force. The reality is that high tech (which most new energy tech is), is a global business, high engineering and development costs are best amortized by developing for a worldwide market. I think a good case could be made that we should expand nuclear -by buying French reactors.

by bigTom at 8:34 PM on 21 Mar 2008

And just where do they think the nuke fuel...

...will come from? There's only a limited supply, and though America has some, we don't, by far, have the largest amounts.

It's just another oil-supply-type fiasco waitin' to happen.

No long-term thinkin'.

by Tasermons Partner at 9:01 PM on 21 Mar 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.