McCain: Build 45 Nuclear Reactors

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - McCain: Build 45 Nuclear Reactors stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DAVID ESPO | June 18, 2008 09:20 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks to the crowd during a campaign stop at Missouri State University in Springfield, Mo., Wednesday, June 18, 2008. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

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 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."

Story continues below

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.

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," measur...
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," measur...
Filed by Daric Snyder  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
86
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- dzent1 I'm a Fan of dzent1 86 fans permalink
photo

Guess it never occurs to anyone that the people who are behind the run-up of petroleum prices are really after much bigger fish - to create a breathless desire for "nuclear power plants now!" among the general population, who used to have the good sense to shun the unwise expansion of this damnable and dangerous technology.

Anyone remember the movie "The China Syndrome"? Anybody really think the kind of corporate malfeasance depicted in the film has just up and vanished in the wonderful Bush years? God help us, will we never learn...

To those who prattle on about the unfeasability of solar and wind, you are full of crap. Do a little research on yer internets. You were born with a mouse - use it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 06/19/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

20GW or about 20 nuclear power plants worth of wind power production were installed in 2007.up 31% from the previous year. at that rate, in 3 years, over 45 Nuclear power plants worth of WIND energy will be installed. Faster then even ONE nuke could be approved, much less built.

http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=139&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=4&cHash=6691aa654e

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 06/21/2008

I hate to break it to you, Hippies, but Nuclear power is the greenest energy option we have. You can only get so much from wind power...

France get's 80% of it's power from Nuclear power, and they have never had a single fatality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 06/19/2008

ah - the French. Liberals only care about the French when they are against a military action we take.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 06/19/2008
photo

Can you explain to the folks why not ONE insurance company will insure an American nuclear power plant?

And no, the Plants are not self-insured.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 06/19/2008

Some of us in the environmental movement do see nuclear as a possibility. It's not a pancea but it can cut green house gases. (I thought you neo cons didn't believe in Global Warming.) It still has problems with waste disposal, plants needing to be decommissioned after a relatively short time and now it's a rich target for terrorist both foreign and domestic. We believe we need to look hard at nuclear power to see if in balance it makes sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 06/19/2008

Philson, just what "environmental movement" sponsored by the nuclear industry do you work for?

Here are the cold hard facts. Nuclear plants built now will create just as much CO2 per kilowat generated as a coal plant would (due to the energy needed to mine and process the increasingly low grade uranium ore into useable fuel, fuel used in construction and fuel used in mothballing at retirement). At 16 times the cost over their lifetime with the risk of catastrophe, vulnerability to terrorist attacks, and unsolved very serious issues of how to deal with their dangerous and long lived waste.

The advantage of nuclear over coal just does not exist.

If we just build one coal plant and then use money equal to fifteen more coal plants for solar and wind power then we get more power with less risk and far lower emissions per kw than we get spending all of that money on one nuke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 06/19/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

What part of just 25 years worth of the worlds energy from Nukes before Uranium becomes scarce, don't you understand? Nukes are the limited energy source...

Solar and Wind are forever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 06/19/2008

Research said:

"Solar and Wind are forever."

As long as "forever" means during times when ambient light sources are sufficient to provide enough supply for the electrical load at that moment.

As long as "forever" means during times when wind forces are sufficient to produce enough lift to spin a turbine fast enough to provide enough supply for the electrical load at that moment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 06/19/2008

"France get's 80% of it's power from Nuclear power, and they have never had a single fatality."

it's also worth noting that it's run by the government, and was entirely owned by the government until 2004. now it is 70% owned by the government.

in other words, there has been no profit motive involved. so comparing how great nukes work in france really doesn't apply to the us, because it is a completely different set-up. their utilities are not run by for-profit corporations, however, currently that is changing in some ways so it remains to be seen how that will work out for them down the road.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 06/19/2008
photo

Damn, if he gets in, we'll be worse off than the Great Depression. His offspring will be wealthy either way!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 06/19/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

Google: Nuclear Nonsense..it's on You Tube post it here I can't..

Harvey Wasserman watch that..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 06/19/2008
- ahornick I'm a Fan of ahornick 3 fans permalink

Building 45 new nuc's in 22 years requires a few things pointed out -

if 104 current plants provide 20% of our energy needs, then 45 added to that would bring that percentage up to 28%.

Except that our energy needs will grow in 22 years. If it grows 2%/yr, we'd need 158 nuclear plants just to maintain the 20% of our energy needs it currently fills. 3% = 193 plants, 4% = 237 plants.

Oh - and the existing 104 plants - almost all are in what's called "extended life". It means they would almost certainly be demolished well before the 22 years.

On this alone - Senator McCain, your 22 year plan is safe for you because you could never be accountable, but it is meaningless.

Additionally, the nuclear business infrastructure (nuclear quality materials, parts, engineers) no longer exists to build them in this volume. It could take 5-10 years to get back up to speed.

For the purposes of disclosure - I am a retired engineer that helped build a number of the existing 104 plants. For 15 of those years, I specialized in planning the engineering, design, construction, testing and startup.

I believe nuc's are part of the solution of our energy future and but will not change the price of gas in the next 10 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 06/19/2008

Interesting, as an engineer you fail to recognize that there have been efficiency improvements in turbine technology?

Taking 5 years to restock uranium supplies could be fine. The reactor facilities themselves would not be built for at least a few years.

Of course this will have little impact on the price of gasoline. The idea is that this is part of an "energy" policy. The US consumes much more energy for electrical production than for vehicular transportation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 06/19/2008
- ahornick I'm a Fan of ahornick 3 fans permalink

Fully aware having only stopped building power plants of all kinds in 2005. Efficiency improvements don't really change the numbers anywhere enough to make a real difference. And another item pretty much never taken into account is the energy input required to make and transport all the plant components like the reactor vessel, pumps, heat exchangers, rebar, etc.

McCain's energy proposal struggles to have us run in place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 06/19/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

"if 104 current plants provide 20% of our energy needs, then 45 added to that would bring that percentage up to 28%"

Assumes no increase in efficiency or plant output in the last 30 to 40 years. That doesn't make any sense to me. Suprising that it makes any sense to a nuclear engineer.

"Oh - and the existing 104 plants - almost all are in what's called "extended life". It means they would almost certainly be demolished well before the 22 years."

Which to me makes the need even more urgent. But to you, you suggest doing nothing, even given this evidence?

"I believe nuc's are part of the solution of our energy future and but will not change the price of gas in the next 10 years."

Wait, you just spent your whole post essentially describing McCain's proposal as crazy. So you do think Nuclear is import. You also think that in 22 years our existing plants will have to close down. And you also think McCain is crazy for wanting to add more plants. Certainly that can't be your position. I'll have to give you the benefit by assuming you just didn't lay out your thoughts clearly because that just doesn't make any sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 06/19/2008
- ahornick I'm a Fan of ahornick 3 fans permalink

I accept your comment that I was not clear about the overall objective of my post -

Neither this proposal by McCain, nor any I've seen from the Democrats gets us out of the mess we are in. I think, and more than likely most of the public appreciates, its a much much bigger problem than the politicians appreciate. Its well past the time to think outside of the box and make some quantum changes in approach and culture.

There are some other posts here that attempt to do this. The government of Germany has provided sufficient incentives for residential and commercial use of solar and wind turbines that they have recently closed their last coal mine and they now export solar panels to the US. While installing some combined cycle plants in Turkey a few years ago, I saw our pipe manufacturer there,fabricating 235 wind turbine towers for the Italians.

Solar, wind, geothermal (residential and central plant) are all proven technologies that $130/barrel oil makes cost effective. Nuclear can play a part but we need a great deal more.

The Worldwatch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org/node/45266) has an outstanding report on recommended approaches -
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 06/19/2008

Ok. You don't like the idea. Where is the democrat plan? I find it interesting that you bash an idea without another one being proposed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 06/19/2008

Obama is no better when it comes to nuclear energy. Germany gets fully HALF it's domestic electricity from solar power. The hell with France and Belgium and McCain too! Wake up Dems!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 06/19/2008

Obama has said that nuclear power is an option, but he also reminds us that it will only be viable, if the waste is contained/reduced, the weapons grade material can be kept out of the hands of the few who want to bomb every body, that is the difference- if he said no nuclear power whatsoever and then a year or so from now someone comes up with a way to make the material no longer radioactive, now won't he look stupid, so of course every thing is an option. Obama also stress, solar and wind power, more that mccain has

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 06/19/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

Nukes are not an energy solution!

Only 25 years for of the worlds energy, then the Uranium wars start, and we are stuck with 1 million years of intractable deadly waste.

1 trillion dollars over 10 years, will eliminate all nukes, coal and imported oil and replace them with wind and solar.
There is plenty of rooftop for solar and plenty of offshore areas for wind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 06/19/2008
- darthdarcy I'm a Fan of darthdarcy 48 fans permalink
photo

I heard a great Idea today on C-Span Journal it was from an older guy who had a scientific background, you could tell he said...

If we lined our Interstate highway with solar panels they would generate 1 Mega watt per mile, and with 11 thousand miles of Interstate or more that would create more electricity than I forget how many Hoover dams..like 23 I think it was maybe more..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 06/19/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

There is enough rooftop area for solar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 06/19/2008
- AdamWykle I'm a Fan of AdamWykle 8 fans permalink

McCain: Build 45 Nuclear Reactors....

...And Iran can't have a single one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 06/19/2008

for real! right

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 06/19/2008
- hoopesaz I'm a Fan of hoopesaz 23 fans permalink

That's not his position. They don't mind if Iran has one, they just want to make sure they build the type that doesn't produce fuel for nuclear weapons. I don't like McCain at all, but understand the issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 06/19/2008
- captnEarl I'm a Fan of captnEarl 8 fans permalink
photo

Has he (Mr. McKnow it all) checked with Utah to see if they will accept the spent nuke waste?or perhaps Idaho or Alabama or any red state?Maybe his state of Az will take it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 06/19/2008

Hey he didn't check with us either, the whole time i was reading this article i was waiting for the point in which he was going to tell us how to reduce the nuclear waist and/or store it, etc.etc.

still waiting,...........

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 06/19/2008

I'm no fan of Mr. McCain, but he did address the point, when he mentioned reversing the decision on reprocessing, so that we actually make efficient use of the fuel we put into the reactors we have.

All the tons of 'nuclear waste' sitting around in this county could be used to produce power, without a great deal of effort and a moderate expenditure in capital.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 06/19/2008

If we were intelligent in our Nuclear policies, we wouldn't have a 'nuclear waste' problem,
because the waste currently being produced by power plants is actually usable as fuel for said power plants once certain impurities are removed. Nintey odd percent of the 'waste' generated by nuclear reactors in this county is valuable fuel not hazardous garbage, and we need to use it, instead of trying to figure out how to store it safely for 10,000 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 06/19/2008

"Nintey odd percent of the 'waste' generated by nuclear reactors in this county is valuable fuel not hazardous garbage, and we need to use it,"

it takes more energy to reprocess the fuel than what you get from it.

so when you look at the entire picture, from mining/shipping to processing/shipping to point of use/shipping to reprocessing/ then shipping to point of use again, you'll see that it's not cheap, it's really expensive as hell. add the safety costs of all that shipping, then you add the costs of plant construction and insurance - nukes are really not the way to go, it's still investing in a finite resource which ultimately starves renewables.

you might say "well we can cut down on all that shipping if we reprocess on site" well if you think building 45 reactors is going to be expensive (1 to 5 billion $ per plant), add 45 reprocessing facilities to that bill. it's financially impossible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 06/19/2008
- Chillinout I'm a Fan of Chillinout 125 fans permalink
photo

Let's see here. There are over 1000 55 gal drums full of radioactive waste sitting at the bottom of the world's oceans, just waiting to rust through. There is a huge field of radioactive waste from Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State heading towards the Columbia River, expected to make it to the river in about 10 - 20 years unless they can figure out how to stop it. (Everything they have tried to date hasn't worked, and they have been trying to stop it now for years).

This is only two examples of how harmful producing nuclear power can be to our planet.

Until we can figure out how to dispose of the radioactive waste nuclear power produces, no more nuke plants!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 06/19/2008
- Chillinout I'm a Fan of Chillinout 125 fans permalink
photo

I should add that the pool of radioactive waste is underground, and this why they are having such a hard time stopping it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 06/19/2008
- TrevorAlan I'm a Fan of TrevorAlan 4 fans permalink

I differ with a lot of liberals in that i could be convinced to support new nuclear power plants...

EXCEPT ...

that we don't have any long tern storage for the most dangerous waste. They still have not, and may never, opened Yucca Montain. Would John propose we build a new facility in Arizona??

I say not talk of new nuclear power until this issue is resolved, and it can only be restarted by legislators who will propose the nuclear waste be forever stored in THEIR OWN state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 06/19/2008

i agree. i would be all for nuke plants if they came out with a way to make the waste inert, but how can we, we still use land fields

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 06/19/2008

The issue is only "partiality" about opening Yucca Mountain.

Let's say it's opened tomorrow. We still have the problem of the environmental insurgency which would take every action fathomable to prevent the transport of said waste from existing reactors to the mountain. Strangely, they seem to feel it's better to have it sit outside in barrels next to each facility??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 06/20/2008
- pvernier I'm a Fan of pvernier 10 fans permalink
photo

Only thing McCain has said that I agree with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 06/19/2008
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 229 fans permalink

He says 2030 because then Mc'Cain doesn't have to do anything. He'll be out by 2013 at worst.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 06/19/2008
- jmundstuk I'm a Fan of jmundstuk 8 fans permalink
photo

Nuclear has to part of the solution. There's just no way around it that I can see.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 06/19/2008
- mcole I'm a Fan of mcole 5 fans permalink

you know, i just dont know. the james jones guy is on the board of CHEVRON, for crying out loud....what is the possibility of that doing any good to anyone but John McCain and BIG OIL?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 06/19/2008
photo

then you're not looking hard enough. Nuclear risks (disposal, contamination, and the temptation to develope nukes) are too high, man and his environment. We can produce the same amount or more energy, clean energy, using water, sun and wind. It's as easy as cooking water, if our leaders would look at it strictly from a non-financial perspective. And the earth's population need to acquire a new mind-set, a collective mission to save our planet, our future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 06/19/2008

I agree - if they did more stories on people who actually use wind, solar, etc and how they help the environment and saves them money, more people would by into it. some time you have to relate to peoples pocket books to make them understand. look at gas right now. all of a sudden, riding bikes, taking the bus, hybrid cars are more exceptable now then 1-2 years ago

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 06/19/2008

All of the issues you've mentioned were solved during the late fifties and early sixties, in the form of Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors... but research into them was dropped because it's very difficult to use this type of a reactor to make nuclear weapons. It's a proven technology, and addresses everyone of your points. You can even use them to dispose the 'waste' produced by standard Light Water reactors in use in the country today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 06/19/2008

Ok - You cite "temptation to develop nukes" as a risk to expansion of US based nuclear energy facilities. Lanos, we already have more nuclear weapons than we could ever deploy. Sure, we could make more but that's got to be amazingly low on the risk assessment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 06/20/2008

It would have a huge impact on global warming. In addition to producing electricity, we wouldn't need to use as many lights at night, with everything glowing green and all.

Go, Johnny Mac!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 06/19/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect