McCain's Nuclear Plan Could Cost $315 Billion

John McCain's plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.

The Republican presidential nominee wants the plants built in time to help the U.S. meet a 29 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each. Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic opponent, is less specific about his plans, saying he wants to ``find ways to safely harness nuclear power.''

Global warming and the rising cost of fossil fuels have boosted chances that atomic energy will supply more U.S. electricity. Public concerns remain about reactor safety and disposing of waste that stays hazardous for millennia. Investment bankers, citing the industry's cost overruns in the 1980s, say they won't finance its long-sought ``nuclear renaissance'' without federal backing.

Read the full story here

-OR-

Read about McCain and Obama agreeing that climate change calls for action

Comments

[LarBear]

I sent this e-mail message to my Senators:Maria Cantwell & Patty Murray + Representative Brian Baird:

EMC2 Fusion has built an upgraded model of Bussard's last experimental plasma containment device, which was known as WB-6. (The WB stands for Wiffle Ball, a whimsical reference to the structure of the device.) "We got first plasma yesterday," Nebel said - but he and his colleagues in Santa Fe, N.M., still have a long way to get the WB-7 experiment up to the power levels Bussard was working with.

Are you aware of research being done into potential FUSION POWER ??? This would end a need for coal fired plants totally... End dependence on oil... Eliminate ANY need for Nuclear Power Plants... Provide Engines for Spacecraft and Navy Ships that are more powerful/ less expensive then what we're using... And could be built sooner and less costly than Nuclear Power Plants with relatively no radioactive waste to store...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/09/566532.aspx

ALSO:

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2008/07/10/more-news-from-the-nebel-led-bussard-iec-fusion-team/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/bussards-inertial-electrostatic.html

This Potential breakthrough is of ENORMOUS World Wide Impact... If the USA won't Fund it, figure out how WA State Residence can Fund and Benefit Financially from this... Raise Money through a Lotto, with Monetary Prizes and Stock in a potential Energy Corporatio­n... Just stop Greedy/ Wealthy from killing this research..­.

[DiscoStu]

$315 Billion is nothing compared to the Democrats Bank Bailout. Hell, we could do it 3 times over.

[Opinionater]

So McCain wants us to fund nuclear power plants so they can turn around and charge us top dollar for the electricity, instead of creating loans for Americans to produce their own energy, pay off the loans and sell the excess back to the grid like they do in Germany?

Thanks, but no thanks. If they were profitable, they would not need public funding.

[DrYRHead]

Nuclear power is not clean. It creates tons of radioactive contaminated material. How would McCain feel if the nuclear waste was put into a hole on his ranch in Sedona, AZ?

[GreyFlcn]

Nuclear power is really expensive.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear

[Niklas]

I think nuclear plants don't produce either green nor cheap energy. You can't be sure of not having an accident like the one in Tschernobyl and I recently read a paper about cancer rates around nuclear plants, for example it was said that you have a higher rate of Leukemia there. Second point is that I actually don't believe in cheap nuclear power. It might be cheap to produce the power but you have to get rid of the atomic waste. In Germany they use an old salt dome as a dump. 20 or 30 years ago it was said that this dome is gonna work for ages. What they found out a few weeks ago is that water infiltrates the nuclear waste and the drums are corroding. That's why they'll have to spend millions on reparing that dump. Of course those who earned millions and billions on selling nuclear power won't pay for that, but the taxpayers will...

[research]

Salt deposits, like Yucca, were deposited by water. Salt water is one of the most corrosive liquids around.

[magwildwood]

scrushmaster,

Yes my town does exist. The Salem Nuclear Power Plant in southern New Jersey, which has two reactors that will only last about another ten years.

I actually did do my research before I posted. Sorry, I have not seen any info on plants built in the US lasting 250 years. Could you please post a link? I would be interested in seeing new information.

[DanSmith]

Check out this solar dish. Pretty cool.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ex76Spawbeg

[mergina]

He is so old, and so wrong. He will not last through his first term if elected. He is hiding major health issues.

[luckyinnc]

Ah..anothe­r Dem that wants to really discuss the issues.

[luckyinnc]

Nuclear power has to be the cornerstone of energy going forward. If you think we can power this country with wind and solar at an economical price, think again. Barry says he is for nuclear power, but he is not. He will use the spent fuel storage as an issue to roadblock any new plants. Nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, renewables and america's own oil should be our mix going forward.

[mergina]

It was a Republican hero, (you remember the gipper don't you?) who, at the behest of the oil industry who gave him a whole lotta money, ENDED solar energy research at a time when they were about to make a major breakthrough that would have thrown a major wrench in the greed fueled oil industry cog.
That was some 28 years ago. Just imagine how far we could have come in 28 years had these programs been properly funded. NO we do not need to have a nuclear plant in every state. WE NEED TO HAVE A LONG STRETCH OF TIME WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE KEPT AWAY FROM DECISION MAKING IN THIS COUNTRY so we can become America once again.

[luckyinnc]

We would probably be about where we are today. Solar technology has advanced, there are installations all over the world. Costs have come down. The facts are, you can only do so much with the sun's heat. It is called physics.

[research]

Other way around buckaroo.

Wind and solar are cheaper per KWH than nuke or even coal.

Please read my profile for links and calculations.

We already import most of our uranium. If the world goes all nuke, it will be scarce in 13 years.

Then a million years of waste.

Nukes can't even get insurance.

[KillTheMessenger]

"If the world goes all nuke, it will be scarce in 13 years. "

No, we won't be. Uranium is quite abundant. What is not abundant are concentrated Uranium ores. But the element itself can be found plentifully in concentrations that have a very reasonable EROEI. And if we reprocess we could power the world for hundreds of years with just the reserves we already know about.

That does not make nuclear power a winner. It just does not make it a loser for the reasons you mentioned.

[MindyIsHot]

The plans of Obama are so great for the environment and the world.

315 billion? How could McCain think we have the money for that after the Iraq War?

http://myrealitytelevision.com/2008/09/obama-versus-mccain-on-natural-resources-fossil-fuels-obamas-4/

So stupid.

[DrYRHead]

Or the $700 billion bank bail-out too.

[scrushmaster]

Over50whitewomen,

That is a great idea and I think your right on. Imagine if everyone's 600$ tax refund was turned into 600$ vouchers for solar panels in the sunny states like California.

I really like your idea and would back it, but con jobs like Fox News, Huffinton Post, CNN, and CBS, plus all the energy unions and lobbies would make sure that never happends.

Our country is really a broke bureaucracy and we need to take government out with Ron Paul and build from the ground up once again. I guess that in itself if more unlikely..­. Arg so frustrating.

[luckyinnc]

$600 will get you enough solar energy to power a 60 watt light bulb, when the sun is shining. Get real.

[research]

Get FREE solar power:

http://www.dsireusa.org/

We already have rebates for solar and wind from state and fed gov. 2000$ from the fed. good till the end of the year.

Do it NOW.

get a grid connected system. Then add solar and wind as prices come down. You can easily build your own wind turbine for 10 cents per peak watt.

[KillTheMessenger]

Please submit plans for 10cents/Wp wind turbine. That would mean you can make a 1kW device for $100. And that sounds a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

[Over50WhiteWoman]

Having read up a bit on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the best solution to the 'energy' problem is distributed systems--where each household generates their own power (solar/win­d/geotherm­al/whateve­r). None of the Congresspeople push that kind of a solution because it would take the whole process out of the hands of the few corporations and put it back into the hands of the citizens--as it was up until about 1920 or so.

Since both parties get a lot of contributions from the big corporations, you will not see this solution. Instead they will continue to push 'wind-farms', solar 'farms', and nuclear--all of which are much less efficient since the electricity is lost in the transmission over land-wires. Of course, there are still kinks in these solutions for homeowners as well, but the government is not going to help find those solutions. They want to keep control of power--literally!

[Egalitare]

Distributed systems are a great idea for those of us who can pay the upfront costs. But what about the rest of us? I understand the zeal to take down Big Oil, but most citizens cannot participate in this solution. Renters certainly cannot, and those who live in multiple unit housing have hurdles to overcome that single unit dwellers do not. Some concentrated sources of energy have to exist for the foreseeable future.

I'm not saying said concentrated power supply has to be private sector, but let's not lose sight of reality when advocating for a "pure" distributive power solution.

[KillTheMessenger]

It's quite simple. He builds himself a distributed power system and takes the load off the network, which then becomes more reliable and efficient for you. Both kinds of users win. What we need to make sure of is that enough capacity will be built on the distributed side by not forcing the equation towards large scale producers, which could easily happen in an energy market that is essentially an oligopoly.

It's really not so much of a technological as a legal and political problem.

[research]

We are ready to nuke Iran for it's legal reprocessing, and this Liars wants for funnel money into more NUKES for his cronies?

Read my profile for a complete refutation of the viability of nukes with links and calcs.

Solar and wind are cheaper, faster to install, don't use billion of gallons per year per plant of fresh water, generate no million year deadly waste, cannot be made into bombs, will not start resource wars of scarce uranium, and have free fuel forever. Rooftop solar and wind can also be mass produced even cheaper without grid upgrades.

[fignozzle]

without grid upgrades??

[research]

Yes, rooftop solar reduces grid load, because some of the energy is used locally, not transmitted on the grid.

[KillTheMessenger]

You don't need grid upgrades if you reduce consumption. The gird upgrades are pushed by the people who want to push MORE energy use. It's like a drug dealer who is also selling needles.

[TrueIndependent]

With the exception of nuclear waste, your post is full of li es

Uranium is FAR from scarce. It's almost everywhere on the planet. Do you know what radon is? It comes from the decay of uranium in the ground. If you've bought a home, you know what it is. Yes, uranium has to be enriched and separated into the proper isotopes in order to use for power, but it's very abundant.

Water is our most powerful and abundant resource. It's used for cooling and never leaves our planet. We will always have water and plenty of it.

Solar power is completely inefficient and NOT cheaper. It's a waste of money.

Wind power is fine, but is extremely expensive. We should certainly have more for that.

The US has plenty of nukes. We won't be making any new ones. If we need more, we'll pull them out of storage. Our ready to use stockpile is less than 4000. We've dismantled or disabled close to 10,000 in the past 15 years.

[research]

Just saying it without links doesn't make it true. My profile has links to prove my points.

[scrushmaster]

Response to Mag,

Nuclear power plants last longer then 40 years they just get overhauled, which with better technology and the ITER science program going into full swing we might just overhaul them into fusion plants.

Nuclear power plants are safe due to the French method of converting the spent Uranium into energy and taking the halflife down to around 250 years.

Please know your facts when you post in the future, and I wonder what town you live in? Does it exist?

Nuclear and Fusion power are the future, we need to get off Coal, Natural Gas, and Petrol.

[fignozzle]

i agree with research, dude.
the man has a figure in mind and companie$ already in mind, i believe that it is otherwise known as CRONYISM.
if mccain is handling this nuclear "arrangement", then we will be all about no bid contracts and so on and so on........­..........­..........­...

we have been there and now i for one American would like to see a new energy decide who does what and why.
thank you very much and God Bless America.

oh yeah, OBAMA/BIDEN 08!

[research]

Cheney Lied about nukes:

http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/chen-prl.html

The French don't have a depository.

There is no commercial half life reduction technology.

Easy uranium will be gone in a few decades.

WInd and solar are already cheaper.

See my profile for links.

[KillTheMessenger]

Easy uranium? You mean the other uranium is hard? One would wish that were true, but it simply isn't.