1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by trickblue, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,910 Messages
    350 Likes Received
    Finally someone is talking about this on a national level...
    Link

    McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors
    By DAVID ESPO

    SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -
    Sen. 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.

    In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies."

    McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

    "Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

    (AP) Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks during a campaign event in...
    Full Image
    Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

    "We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded.

    Later, at a news conference, McCain said he favors steps to reduce the time plant owners need to obtain the necessary permits. He suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line. He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.

    In an appearance before an audience at Missouri State University, McCain also said, "We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."

    Shortly after he spoke, a participant in a campaign-organized round-table discussion of energy, retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, said obtaining the necessary construction permits can take five years. "We should be able to cut that in half," added Jones, a former NATO commander who is now chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber Institute for 21st Century Energy. He also is on the board of Chevron.

    Jones flew to Missouri aboard the campaign's chartered jet although, ironically, Democrats recently disclosed that his name has figured in Obama campaign discussions of potential Democratic vice presidential running mates.

    McCain's motorcade drove by a few dozen sign-carrying demonstrators protesting the Iraq War. One audience member interrupted his remarks by standing and shouting that the Arizona senator had taken millions from the oil industry.

    A dramatic spike in worldwide oil prices has pushed the cost of gasoline to $4 a gallon and more, and made energy a domestic political issue in a way it has not been since the days of the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s.

    On Tuesday, McCain delivered a speech in Texas in which he made the case for a nationwide effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, including additional drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and said he would begin laying out specific proposals in the coming days.

    With his appearance in Missouri, he began making good on that promise.

    The Republican presidential contender said Missouri gets about 85 percent of its electricity from coal, an abundant natural resource in the U.S.

    "Perhaps no advancement in energy technology could mean more to America than the clean burning of coal and the capture and storage of carbon emissions," he said.

    With the $2 billion in federal funds, he said, "We will build the demonstration plants, refine the techniques and equipment, and make clean coal a reality. This single achievement will open vast amounts of our oldest and most abundant resource. And it will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles."

    It was the second straight day McCain has criticized Obama, the Illinois senator who will collect the Democratic presidential nomination this summer, a few days before McCain lays claim to the GOP nomination.

    Obama has said McCain's support for additional offshore oil drilling is evidence that he would effectively give the country another term of the Bush presidency.

    "I guess the senator has changed his position since voting for the 2005 Bush energy bill - a grab-bag of corporate handouts that I opposed," McCain said. "Come to think of it, that energy bill was the only time we've ever seen Senator Obama vote in favor of any tax break - and it was a tax break for the oil companies."

    McCain opposed the 2005 measure and said at the time it was larded with billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.
  2. The30YardSlant

    The30YardSlant Benched

    24,279 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    [IMG]

    BRILLIANT!!!

    McCain is really starting to grow on me. He seems genuinely concerned about solving the impending energy crisis, whereas Obama is just sitting on his hands and promising "change"
  3. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,104 Messages
    2,314 Likes Received
    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Great move.

    Nuclear energy is the most likely candidate to replace oil.
  4. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,716 Messages
    95 Likes Received
    :p:
    THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
    An Interdisciplinary MIT Study


    But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

    http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/


    Solar... 4.5B years and still going. No waste, no toxic threat, zero emissions - no-brainer.
  5. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,531 Messages
    2,217 Likes Received
    I like that tag line. If I were an energy nut, I'd throw that in my sig. But I'm not so I'll just complement it.
  6. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,716 Messages
    95 Likes Received
    Well, I'm sure not averse to a compliment - thank you, sir. :gent:
  7. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,104 Messages
    2,314 Likes Received
    Do you realize that many European nations rely heavily on nuclear power and suffer neither the energy problems nor the dependence on foreign oil that we do? It's no coincidence that France is the most prolific nuclear power-generating nation and also the world's number one net exporter of electricity. It's also no coincidence that Italy, after dismantling its nuclear program, is now the world's number one net importer of electricity.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4713398.stm

    Do you realize that nuclear reactors actually pump less radiation into the environment than conventional reactors and do not contribute to greenhouse emissions?

    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    Your concerns about proliferation and watse disposal are warranted, but the technology is already readily available. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and we certainly can't put him back in.

    Although nuclear power plants have very high initial costs due to their extensive safety features, they're relatively inexpensive to maintain because the fuel is cheap and available in many different places around the world.

    Furthermore, solar power is not cost effective in the least, and is poorly suited for areas that do not receive an abundance of sunlight.

    Yes, it is a no-brainer: nuclear power is the future, the next technological step, and we should embrace it.
  8. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,716 Messages
    95 Likes Received
    Just be sure to wear your lead-lined jumper when you do.

    Sorry, but I don't share your enthusiasm for nuclear energy as a long-term solution. The waste disposal issue is the final nail in the coffin - the more persistent isotopes take ten millenia before they become "safe". Figure that one out and then come see me.
  9. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    These materials that take ten millenia to decay emit relatively low amounts of radiation. The material you really have to worry about are the materials that have shorter half-lives. The technology of permanently storing this material has increased significantly. Material is no longer stored in metal containers; they are encased in a very durable plastic resin and stored hundreds to thousands of feet underground. The plastic resin also prevents contamination of water if it does happen to come in contact with the storage facility.
  10. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,981 Messages
    261 Likes Received
  11. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    118,903 Messages
    2,711 Likes Received
    That's a slap right in the mouth.

    Nice job John. :laugh2:
  12. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I agree. The MSR reactor has a lot of benefits over the standard light water reactor.
  13. Bob Sacamano

    Bob Sacamano Benched

    57,073 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    that's why I'm afraid that he's going to win the Presidency because everyone is so hyped up on change, and getting the Republicans out of office, that they just might miss the boat
  14. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,104 Messages
    2,314 Likes Received
    What am I "figuring out?" An inexpensive, efficient, and inexhaustible source of energy whose only byproducts are butterflies and rainbows?

    There isn't such a thing.

    Nuclear energy is far from perfect, but it's currently our best option. Although disposal of radioactive isotopes is a concern, many countries rely on nuclear power and have been safely disposing of their radioactive waste for decades.
  15. hank2k

    hank2k Member

    516 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    There's a big ranch in Crawford ,Texas where they can store it.:D
  16. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I also know of a big, inefficient house in Tennessee that would probably store a lot of waste as well. Between the two areas, our storage problem will be solved.
  17. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye. Zone Supporter

    15,104 Messages
    2,314 Likes Received
    Nuclear waste is already being stored in West Texas.
  18. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,910 Messages
    350 Likes Received
    There's already a lot of waste being stored in that house...
  19. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,576 Messages
    9 Likes Received
    It too crowded because of Al's ego. :D

Share This Page