PDA

View Full Version : McCain Proposes 45 new nuclear reactors


db44
Jun 18th, 2008, 08:54 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - 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."

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 also suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line.

I'm not against as anti-nuclear power as some, but this is not the answer. Too many, and he wants to cut down the time for granting permits? I presume that means making obtaining permits easier?

We have many more newable, safer energy sources we should be tapping. McCain doesn't understand the problem if this is his answer.

pinky
Jun 18th, 2008, 09:03 PM
I wonder if McCain has a clue about the cost of building a nuke plant.

Thirty years ago, it was in the multiple millions.

Venisenvy
Jun 18th, 2008, 10:14 PM
I think this is the answer, at least a part of it. We have countries like France that get most of their power from nuclear energy. It safe and a good technology to have in place. I am completly in favor of this plan and would hope that even if its Obama and not McCain that is president that they would take this up.

DoubleEdgeSword
Jun 19th, 2008, 04:06 AM
What the world wants is safe, cheap (relatively), clean energy production. I truly believe that private enterprise will step up and deliver. Some very bright person or persons will revolutionize energy in the same way Jobs, Gates, et. al. revolutionized electronic communications, the same way many of the great inventors and innovators changed our cultural. Where there is a market, there will be someone willing to produce the product. I am not relying on any government investing in alternative energy research to fill this need.

db44
Jun 19th, 2008, 06:21 AM
The difference with the computer industry and the energy industry is there was nobody that wanted to see the computer fail, save perhaps the abacus and calculator industries, but they aren't a big lobby.

Reports have Big Oil, on the other hand, buying up patents of creations which could possibly cut our dependency on oil. I'll try and look up some stories, but a friend of mine has a list of these things back home. They throw wads of cash at inventors, sometime I believe also lean hard on them, and then they shelve the creations they buy so to keep us needing their product. It's kind of like a monopoly in that way, but I guess in this case it's legal.

lions1mew
Jun 19th, 2008, 07:43 AM
A man here where I live is doing just that ...

http://www.diversified-energy.com/index.cfm

He had founded Spectrum Astro, which made high technology satellites for the military (he later sold the company to General Dynamics, which continues that company as its space satellite division called C4 Systems [http://www.gdc4s.com]). The man is a genius and knows engineering and how to use natural resources without destroying the environment. I have faith that this company, or companies like it, will have the answers we need in the not-too-distant future.

DoubleEdgeSword
Jun 19th, 2008, 09:45 AM
The difference with the computer industry and the energy industry is there was nobody that wanted to see the computer fail, save perhaps the abacus and calculator industries, but they aren't a big lobby.

Reports have Big Oil, on the other hand, buying up patents of creations which could possibly cut our dependency on oil. I'll try and look up some stories, but a friend of mine has a list of these things back home. They throw wads of cash at inventors, sometime I believe also lean hard on them, and then they shelve the creations they buy so to keep us needing their product. It's kind of like a monopoly in that way, but I guess in this case it's legal.

There will continue to be customers for Big Oil, Dave -- those developing countries whose citizens and governments care more now about accumulating than preserving, countries such as China and India. Societies where the newly "rich" will consume and consume will continue to buy petroleum products. Older, more established nations are looking for new alternatives and are more concerned about cleaner and more efficient energy sources, countries in Western Europe and (coming along) the U.S. China controls oil prices, keeping prices low to encourage economic growth. Both China and India have increased their production of oil while the U.S. production has fallen.

db44
Jun 19th, 2008, 10:07 AM
I know there will always be consumers, or at least for the next couple of hundred of years.

But tell that to the oils execs, who see any penny lost as a sin.