McCain Calls For Building 45 New Nuclear Reactors »
Posted By scarlett426 3 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsSen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
scarlett426
Proud grad of the University of Cincinnati with the very lucrative and in demand BA in History. Recently admitted to the Bar in Ohio after ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 74
-
0%
Aidenag3 months, 2 weeks ago
there is no way 45 nuke plants could be build in this time frame. Though i guess its a step forward from McLame's original statement that we needed to build like 700 of them within the next 40 years, which was even more impossible.
Found it especially funny that he thinks there is such a thing as "clean coal". Guess he isn't aware that its just a talking point of Big Coal advertisements. The day they make coal clean, is the same day smoking becomes healthy...
Reply-
-
0%
Aidenag3 months, 2 weeks ago
I was supposed to give my own energy policy? what am i running for office? Oh well, i guess ill bite though.
We should create solar-thermal generated electricity in Nevada. It's been shown that this can cover 100% of current US power consumption, and meet demand with full growth rates for the next 50 years. It's been shown to cost less than the cost of building enough nuclear plants to equal same amount of production. And it creates just as many jobs. best of all, its 100% safe, and requires no cleanup, or extreme safety standards that run up costs by the billions for future generations to deal with. Which most people like to downplay, but look at Hanford, we shell out $2 billion a year cleaning it up, and have got about 40 more years to go at that cost before were done. cost of about $100 billion when all is said and done...
Second, we build wave farms off the coastal states. There is enough energy on our coasts to power the Nation for the next few centuries....
Reply -
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 2 weeks ago
Lefties don't have energy policies beyond taxing oil companies and thinking that somehow will help instead of raising gas and home-heating prices even further.
It would seem the best scenario for the enviro-Nazis would be to live in grass huts, but no FIRES! Fire's produce C02. They even banned fires on beaches in Seattle. Guess where Aidenag lives ;)
I know Aidenag pretends he knows how long it takes to build a nuke plant. Just play along, smile and nod. That's the best way to deal with people who have no idea what they are saying.
Solar thermal plants in Nevada? Why, that will disrupt the ecosystem. Lizards will be homeless! Wave Farms??? That'll destroy marine habitat!
Nuclear energy is clean and efficient. How the hell would you transfer power generated in Nevada across the entire U.S.?
Reply
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
DaneL3 months, 2 weeks ago
I worked on a clean coal burning powerhouse. It was dismantled and sent to China piece by piece. It was a joint venture with Texaco, Bechtel and a few other small concerns. It was built in the high desert of So. Cal. The biggest problem there was the cost of shipping the coal by train to the plant.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 2 weeks ago
If you or anyone else thinks that the biggest problem with coal is the cost of shipping, or even carbon emissions, then you should take a little vacation in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia. The environmental impact of mining the stuff is destroying large areas of the oldest and most diverse temperate forest in the world. I would like to outlaw the mining and use of coal entirely, but I know this not to be feasable for a number of reasons. But it should be a goal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
miklkit3 months, 2 weeks ago
I would guess that size matters. Our current plants are too big, complicated, and unreliable. Using many smaller plants in the French model seems like the way to go.
Reply -
0%
CactusAnnie3 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi Blinkers, nice to see you! Japan is roughly the size of say, Montana, one state. I have always been a proponent of states rights over federal. Who knows, maybe some states become proactive and start paying dividends to the residents like Alaska does, could be the numbers are an under-estimate, then.
This is a big country, each state is different, each region is different.
Like with the abortion issue, if they want abortion on demand in California, the majority should have the say, but by the same token if the majority in South Dakota want no part of it, they should have that same right to govern what happens there, it is not the Federal right to govern those issues in that area.
Reply-
0%
CactusAnnie3 months, 2 weeks ago
The will of the people in Mississippi should not have the right to say what New Jersey should do, and New Mexico should not dictate the laws of New Hampshire. (I think Henry Wade was 100% correct when he argued states rights before the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade, in the early 70s, and still think that one should be thrown out, regardless of one's stance on abortion, just for an example.)
Break it down to each state, and it is a lot more workable, with the "power" more in the hands of the "people"...
The Federal consolidation should see to our national defense, our national transportation systems, our national concerns, not the regional issues, like whether or not to build a solar or nuclear power plant, or whether low phosphorus coal can be mined, like in the 90s, when the "Feds" (aka Clinton) banned it in Utah to give advantage to the Chinese Lippo Group.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus3 months, 2 weeks ago
Very VERY ambitious.... And they cost (figure I read in the UK was GBP 10 billion / reactor). I can't remember whether that figure included R&D (the UK's in the same boat as the US re abscence of technical skill now), but even assuming economy of scale could drop the price by a half, that's still 450 billion USD.....
Now if they could invest that amount in Fusion research.....
Reply -
-
-
0%
miklkit3 months, 2 weeks ago
That's as good a place as any to start on the road to rebuilding our manufacturing base. Currently we are using a lot of European parts in our refinery upgrades. Whyforhowcum we lost our manufacturing base, but the Europeans can compete with the Asians just fine?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze3 months, 2 weeks ago
"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961
Is 45 new Nukes ambitious? Yep!
Is it doable? Yep!
Is clean coal ambitious? Yep!
Is it doable or close to doable? Maybe!
Industrial economies require industrial production of energy. Transportation alternatives to oil and its derivatives can only be developed in an environment with abundant sources of electrical power.
If Obama had come up with this first, I would have had to have given him very serious thought. Alas....
Reply-
0%
miklkit3 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm no fan of coal. I'd welcome the work trying to turn that sows ear into a silk purse, but have no confidence in it.
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 2 weeks ago
If you want to burn coal at your house, go for it. Just don't come to my back yard to dig it up.
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs3 months, 2 weeks ago
If you want to burn coal and deal with the smoke and ashes at your house, then go for it. Just don't come to my back yard to dig it up.
Reply
-
-
0%
Spadecaller3 months, 2 weeks ago
I wonder how many supporters of McCain's proposal will later object when they begin building them in their communities...
Reply -
0%
berkeley3 months, 2 weeks ago
in the past fifty years, no one in any country has developed anything close to a solution for the tons of radioactive waste continuously created by these plants.
the yucca mountain site was planned to have opened a decade ago. it might make it in another 20 years, but there is no consensus that even it is an effective solution. why? because of the hundreds of thousands of years this "waste" must be isolated, lest it kill us.
anyone talking about creating even more of this poison without a plan for both the storage and transport of the deadly by-products is as crazy as mccain.
if we put that same effort into any number of alternative sources, we would all benefit a hundred-fold.
Reply-
-
0%
Spadecaller3 months, 2 weeks ago
I understand that water used to soak radioactive waste creates a great solution for enemas; perhaps Wolfie would like to try one out for us.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
miklkit3 months, 2 weeks ago
I think it was Isaac Asimov who came up with the plan I like best. Find a big canyon out in the desert. Build a small nuclear plant there and start making glass. Mix the nuclear waste into that glass and store it in the canyon. Glass lasts for geologic time. By the time it weathers away the yucky stuff will be gone.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag3 months, 2 weeks ago
There doing tests on the glass encased radioactive waste in my state with the Hanford Reactor mess(nations largest superfund site) It looks promising, but the verdict is still out on how effective it really is. Will be years before anyone knows if it actually works, and if so, what type of glass works the best.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tehranchik3 months, 2 weeks ago
Walden---I'm a stylist not a scientist. Even though I am a stylist I do know that oil, coal and nuclear are not viable options. They all lead down the same road----destruction of a healthy planet. We will be trading one problem for another.
If you read aidenag's comment above about solar thermal energy--it sounds like an area we should be more interested in.
Encasing toxic nuclear waste in glass will still have to be dealt with by someone someday in the future so it's not really dealing with the problem in the here and now.
Reply
-
-
0%
dunkirk3 months, 2 weeks ago
this tends to go along qwith most REPUBLICAN/;right wing initiatives.....Let THEM worry about the aftermath.
Reply
-
-
0%
canadianrancher573 months, 2 weeks ago
McCains call for 45 reactors may seem like a tall order but when you are dealing with the energy issue it is best to start high and then after all the protests about where they are going to be built blow over you may actually end up with maybe a dozen or so, if he had come out and said he wanted 10 or 12 you might get 1. Theres nothing wrong with setting your sights high.
Reply -
0%
Lurch3 months, 2 weeks ago
First he said 700, now he says 45. One day, if he keeps changing his mind, McCain might actually hit a realistic number.
Of course I might win the lottery too one day...
Reply -
0%
automan9093 months, 2 weeks ago
I love McCains ideas for our energy problems. They are much better tha Obama's Ideas of a windfall tax. That will just shift that tax cost to us in the price we pay at the pumps. Thats idiotic.
McCains Ideas are much better than the stupid ideas of Obama.
"Change" for the worse with Obama.
Reply-
0%
Lurch3 months, 2 weeks ago
I think you need to study the meaning of a windfall profits tax.
It means to tax profits, not income.
By taxing their profit at something like 90% for the top marginal rate, which is what the greatest generation did to pay for WWII, their is no incentive to raise prices because they won`t make anymore.
McCains ideas are Bush`s ideas, more handouts for themselves and their cronies buddies.
McCain thinks the multinationals and politicians know how to spend your money better than you do.
Obama is change we NEED!
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.