McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

[darkhorse 0]

I will solve that!

I agree coal needs to be done with entirely since, according to the recent WORLD COAL INSTITUTE, we will run out of it in about 140 years or so. It's good to find alternatives. I favor solar cells. Nowadays, to get a wind turbine, you need to be in the right location. As a matter of fact, it costs about 60,000 dollars to have one installed in your backyard. You'll break-even in about 10 years. But, you need to replace it about every 20 years.

I am currently researching how to increase the efficiency of solar cells, and I find it a better option because of the unlimited resource we have from the sun.

If you like solar so much, attach as many as you want to your house to get off the grid. when you finally come to the conclusion it is not cost effictive, you may reconnect to the grid and use fossil fueled or other types of electricity and not feel guilty about it.

Again, the free market will take care of these things naturally. It's good to discuss options but not good when government policy tries to dictate which one is best. Look what happened with Ethanol in the U.S. By mandating the use of a certain amount of Ethanol in cars (corn based) it raised the price of corn so much there are people in the world hurting, starving or dying because of these higher prices.

[HAL 9000 96]

consolemaster is an engineer.

He may actually mean it when he says he's researching ways to make solar panels more efficient.

[darkhorse 0]

Please desist from name calling.

*********************************

Gary- this is a more logical and less impactive (save for the nuclear waste issue- Yucca Mtn and vitrified waste aside), on the environment AND our pocketbooks. Simple proportions here. Increasing the nuclear output will decrease significantly the energy grid part of the petroleum consumption in our market. Vehicles will have a much greater supply pool, and we won't have to seek questionable, short term petroleum deposits offshore.

Gas prices go down, etc.

I doubt we'll get Fusion in the next 2 decades but from what I've heard over in the Physical Sciences Division on campus its not far off after that (on a commercial scale).

Then I hope we can use the Fission reactors for something a little less radioactive.

OK no name calling here but I will ask you this- How will nuclear power significantly decrease petroleum consumption?

and if you listen to people that tell you something is not far off from 2 decades from now,... well, what are they really telling you.

I can tell you we will all be living on the moon not far off from 2 decades from now.... if they are so confident in the technology, why would it or should it take that long?

consolemaster is an engineer.

He may actually mean it when he says he's researching ways to make solar panels more efficient.

Well when he actually does it, we will all bow to him and give praise.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well when he actually does it, we will all bow to him and give praise.

Who are you kidding, no we won't. Engineers never get any credit for anything.

[HAL 9000 96]

Please desist from name calling.

*********************************

Gary- this is a more logical and less impactive (save for the nuclear waste issue- Yucca Mtn and vitrified waste aside), on the environment AND our pocketbooks. Simple proportions here. Increasing the nuclear output will decrease significantly the energy grid part of the petroleum consumption in our market. Vehicles will have a much greater supply pool, and we won't have to seek questionable, short term petroleum deposits offshore.

Gas prices go down, etc.

I doubt we'll get Fusion in the next 2 decades but from what I've heard over in the Physical Sciences Division on campus its not far off after that (on a commercial scale).

Then I hope we can use the Fission reactors for something a little less radioactive.

OK no name calling here but I will ask you this- How will nuclear power significantly decrease petroleum consumption?

and if you listen to people that tell you something is not far off from 2 decades from now,... well, what are they really telling you.

I can tell you we will all be living on the moon not far off from 2 decades from now.... if they are so confident in the technology, why would it or should it take that long?

consolemaster is an engineer.

He may actually mean it when he says he's researching ways to make solar panels more efficient.

Well when he actually does it, we will all bow to him and give praise.

B/C a good part of the current electrical grid relies on petroleum-based consumption at power plants to generate electricity. Less oil used = more is available to use in vehicles. Now... as for oil company profits and speculation... that's another ballgame.

Physicists give estimates based on where the particular state of Fusion Research is at. Some claim to have done it but without the benefit of scientific reproduction to give weight to their claims. Hence it will be a bit longer before it reaches wider feasability.

Well when he actually does it, we will all bow to him and give praise.

Who are you kidding, no we won't. Engineers never get any credit for anything.

That's why they get the big bucks.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's why they get the big bucks.

The only engineers I know who are wealthy are the ones who are in business for themselves. Engineering salaries are the suck!

[zqt3344 21]

Thank you McCain finally someone talking real specifics and details for a change. Nuclear energy can be bought for 6 cents a kilowatt by consumers now! Wonder how many of you liberal lovers will try to deny this. Funny how all we hear Ovomit talking about doing is "Windfall" taxes and more taxes on middle class and wealthy and taxes on dividends and capital gains and corporate taxes increase. All this and at a time of recession, what a total non financial moron. This guy is a joke. McCain in 2008!

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

Bury and dump the waste in Canada, there is all kind of empty barren space there and no one living there within miles!

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.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Bury and dump the waste in Canada, there is all kind of empty barren space there and no one living there within miles!

Better yet, let's dump it in Europe. They're all a bunch of Godless commies anyway. Their so-called soulless lives don't matter.

[darkhorse 0]

B/C a good part of the current electrical grid relies on petroleum-based consumption at power plants to generate electricity. Less oil used = more is available to use in vehicles. Now... as for oil company profits and speculation... that's another ballgame.

Physicists give estimates based on where the particular state of Fusion Research is at. Some claim to have done it but without the benefit of scientific reproduction to give weight to their claims. Hence it will be a bit longer before it reaches wider feasability.

Then please tell me where these petroleum based power plants are. Better yet, show me one that uses OIL for electricity generation.

I could be wrong here but its to my knowledge oil is used in the vast majority for vehicles and in some cases heating.

And as far as physicists estimates go... Im sure their main estimate of concern is where their next grant will come from.

Once again...if they know fusion is possible (and more importantly profitable), then it would be out there in the news headlines....unless you believe there is a vast conspiracy to cover up this discovery because we all know the evil oil companies and George Bush run the world.

[eric&gen 0]

Good plan coming from whack job McCain more nuclear waste than the earth can handle theres goes the environment more money from our tax dollars to find more places to hide the waste.

[zqt3344 21]

Only whack job is Ovomit, Mr Tax and Spend your hard earned money and Mr I want change, but for what I have not a clue and oh by the way do not bother to ask me any plan details for it does not matter, YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHAHAHHAH what a idiot and anyone following that nonsense is not being a thoughtful voter.

Good plan coming from whack job McCain more nuclear waste than the earth can handle theres goes the environment more money from our tax dollars to find more places to hide the waste.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The burn-up rate of nuclear fuel translate into how much energy one can get from a rod of uranium or plutonium. As we increase the efficiency of these reactors by increasing the burn-up rate, the waste produced will be more hazardous to our environment. The lower the burn-up rate, the less hazardous. The absorbtion dose (human or bio tissue absorbtion) will be high if the nuclear reactors become much more efficient. It doesn't produce any pollutants during operation, but it just stores a much more powerful pollutant that is not disposal or seperable such as sulfuric acid from coal plants. On the hand, some bio-chemists discovered an organism that eat trash, and deficate petroleum. Maybe there's a solution after all for our oil-crisis.

We will get nuclear wastes that takes thousands of years to become stable.

Spent nuclear fuel is spent nuclear fuel. It's all pretty dang deadly. My background is Navy nuclear propulsion. My current is Health Physics. The enrichment of the fuel doesn't make it any more or less deadly. If anyone approached one you would die instantly. Of course they are stored underwater or in dry casks to shield them. Navy reactors are designed to run with much higher enrichment (and have never had a single accident... thanks to kick a$$ training)

until Yucca we have this (our fuel pools are filling up)

Dry Cask Storage

[HAL 9000 96]

That's why they get the big bucks.

The only engineers I know who are wealthy are the ones who are in business for themselves. Engineering salaries are the suck!

Well we all know of two supposed engineers here that make pretty nice moolah.

Coincidentally the Michael Douglas type in Falling Down.

[zqt3344 21]

Nuclear is safe and clean if handled properly which it is and can be as demonstrated by Lucky Strike. Know people that personally work at a nuclear reactor here in Missouri that back up what LuckyStrike says.

The burn-up rate of nuclear fuel translate into how much energy one can get from a rod of uranium or plutonium. As we increase the efficiency of these reactors by increasing the burn-up rate, the waste produced will be more hazardous to our environment. The lower the burn-up rate, the less hazardous. The absorbtion dose (human or bio tissue absorbtion) will be high if the nuclear reactors become much more efficient. It doesn't produce any pollutants during operation, but it just stores a much more powerful pollutant that is not disposal or seperable such as sulfuric acid from coal plants. On the hand, some bio-chemists discovered an organism that eat trash, and deficate petroleum. Maybe there's a solution after all for our oil-crisis.

We will get nuclear wastes that takes thousands of years to become stable.

Spent nuclear fuel is spent nuclear fuel. It's all pretty dang deadly. My background is Navy nuclear propulsion. My current is Health Physics. The enrichment of the fuel doesn't make it any more or less deadly. If anyone approached one you would die instantly. Of course they are stored underwater or in dry casks to shield them. Navy reactors are designed to run with much higher enrichment (and have never had a single accident... thanks to kick a$$ training)

until Yucca we have this (our fuel pools are filling up)

Dry Cask Storage

[darkhorse 0]

Good plan coming from whack job McCain more nuclear waste than the earth can handle theres goes the environment more money from our tax dollars to find more places to hide the waste.

So tell me enlightened one...just how much nuclear "waste" can the earth handle? Or are you just spouting off nonsense because you really have no clue?

By the way... heres a short quiz? Which has caused more environemental damage in the last 100 years. A. COAL B. NUCLEAR or C. Third World Socialist/Communist Tyrants?

Anyone who knows anything about the world knows the obvious answer.