McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

[GaryC 7]

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

55 minutes ago

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 second 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 it was 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.

McCain did not say what steps, if any, he would propose to simplify the permitting process for nuclear plants. Nor did he say how he would dispose of the waste, other than to say "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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_...RyYuTgOSQxsnwcF

[mawilson 2,133]

That's awesome.

[GaryC 7]

That's awesome.

I thought it was also.

[Niels Bohr 72]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

[GaryC 7]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

[mawilson 2,133]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

I thought the idea was to replace the existing coal- and oil- and natural gas-fired

power plants with renewable alternatives - hydro, solar, wind and nuclear.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I like it. We need alternatives to fossil fuels. Gotta figure out the nuclear waste issues, though.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Commercial nuclear reactors run at 100% power when operating and fossil plants then can be throttled back as demand fluctuates.

[Scott & Lai 12]

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Commercial nuclear reactors run at 100% power when operating and fossil plants then can be throttled back as demand fluctuates.

oh... this allows 2 things.

1. saves fossil fuels

2. permits the plant to schedule a refueling down to the minute

[Cassie 8]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

I actually like this idea, anything to get away from oil or coal fired plants. But the Big Dog is right, there will need to be a plan in place to take care of the residual wastes.

[GaryC 7]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

I actually like this idea, anything to get away from oil or coal fired plants. But the Big Dog is right, there will need to be a plan in place to take care of the residual wastes.

There is one as long as we have the courage and will to do it. Yuka Mountan has been studied for decades and most people think it's the safest way to go. At least it's better than storing it on site like we do now. Bury it miles down in a shaft and seal it in.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

I actually like this idea, anything to get away from oil or coal fired plants. But the Big Dog is right, there will need to be a plan in place to take care of the residual wastes.

Yucca mountain!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

[Cassie 8]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

I actually like this idea, anything to get away from oil or coal fired plants. But the Big Dog is right, there will need to be a plan in place to take care of the residual wastes.

Yucca mountain!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

That wikipedia article mentions that with USA's current plants, it would be filled by 2014. Methinks we need more than one site.

[GaryC 7]

There were many reactors ordered in the 70s, and a number of them got canceled. And, many that began construction, stopped. When the electric companies look at the reactors, the also look at the electricity demand. It seems that electricity demand has not increased as dramatically as they want after the cold war. Back then, consumption was increasing about 7% per year. Now, it's only 2.5%. Having these reactors seems to be a waste of money. We'll see.

Replacing coal and oil fired plants with nuclear is the green thing to do. If your into that sort of thing. But replacing the oil and NG plants with nuclear will reduce the need for imports. That is a very good thing.

I actually like this idea, anything to get away from oil or coal fired plants. But the Big Dog is right, there will need to be a plan in place to take care of the residual wastes.

Yucca mountain!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

That wikipedia article mentions that with USA's current plants, it would be filled by 2014. Methinks we need more than one site.

It's been piling up for almost 50 years now. Once we have all the current waste put away what we make will not be that hard to deal with.