Nuclear Pintos, the McCain/Obama energy plan

Isn't it great how bipartisan everyone's being this election season? I'm so relieved that we don't have to put up with a lot of bickering over trivial issues like gay marriage, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the surge, Afghanistan, single-payer healthcare, and the $700B bailout.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Gays should not be allowed to marry.
• If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government spies on you/pours water into your lungs?
• The surge worked.
• We can and must win in Afghanistan.
• Single-payer is not realistic.
• The only cure for our financial woes is to give several hundred billion to those at the center of the crisis.
  

Gore Vidal

Mussolini

So now I get to practice my right as an American to choose between purple and violet on the above scale. Yippee.

To the above list of crucial, politically irrelevant issues facing the country, add energy independence. Here's McCain in the 1st Presidential debate:

"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power."

Damn right. We have got to stop paying Iran and Venezuela for their precious wind and sunshine and tides. It's time to start producing some American wind and sunshine where it will do the workers in Ohio and other swing states some good!

What's that, Obama? We're not paying them for sunshine?

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States."

It's the oil, stupid, and the problem with both statements is that McCain and Obama apparently think that all forms of energy are drop-in replacements for oil.

Which they are, if your car runs on plutonium and has a sail, like my modified 72' Pinto:

(sail not pictured)

Those of you who do not have a nuclear car and house like me are probably still going to want some gasoline and home heating oil, but you cannot create gasoline from nuclear fuel. You cannot create home heating oil from wind. (You can, theoretically, create both from bio-fuels, but this is only a win if your farm equipment runs on wind, solar, or nuclear. Or if you're the corn lobby. Then it's a big win either way.)

Even better, you could create the infrastructure to convert electricity into hydrogen, which you can then use to generate more electricity, or drive a car, or heat a house, or fly a blimp.

But no one's talking about that, because unlike bio-fuels, solar, and wind, overhauling our energy infrastructure might actually threaten the windfall profits of oil & gas companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates.

If you read the above quotes and you're thinking that Obama didn't say anything about nuclear and therefore isn't in favor of Nuclear Pintos, here's an Obama quote from last night's debate:

"Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."

No explanation of why nuclear power is a good idea. I assume it's for more Nuclear Pintos.

Obama seems to be pulling away in the stretch. Good, I'll be happier if I don't have to vote for purple over violet. Nader's on the ballot in more states than ever. If you're not in a swing state, think about it. He's incredible. Wherever you are, you could just thumb your nose at the plurality system and vote your conscience--what a concept!