McCain Calls for 700 New Nuclear Plants,Cost: $4 Trillion »

Posted by: Aidenag 2 months, 2 weeks ago

1.0

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 0

Propped: 26

Comments: 11

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Sen. John McCain made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week: "the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There's no reason why America shouldn't." Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is -- Why would we? Let's do the math.

Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 11

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

aniokly
May 5, 2008, 11:41 a.m.
Do you have any idea how much money a Union Tradesman can make building a Nuke plant? We bouht a new house when my husband helped build Braidwood Nuke plant. What have the Democrats done for the trades Unions lately? Exactly.

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  Aidenag
  May 5, 2008, 1:08 p.m.
  I think you missed the point of the article, but you probably didn't read it, so thats OK... The point the article was making is that what McLame called for, is literally impossible to accomplish.
  
  Reply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  bruhaha
  May 6, 2008, 12:05 a.m.
  Rather have what the democrats have done for unions than what the republicans have done.
  
  Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

ChefEOD
May 5, 2008, 10:58 p.m.
Impossible?
Like sending men to the moon back in the 60's? That kind of impossible?
Michelangelo: The greater danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.

4 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  Aidenag
  May 5, 2008, 11:02 p.m.
  No, more like impossible, as in we do not have the resources, or the money, or the man hours to create them in the time frame McCain is calling for..
  
  3 RepliesReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    nostalgia
    May 6, 2008, 7:27 a.m.
    Not in the time frame McCain called for but we have to start somewhere
    Wind and solar are fine but will not be enough
    There needs to be a mix and we need to start NOW!
    Even Obama admitted that on Meet the Press - although with his "qualified" answer he didn't seem serious
    MR. RUSSERT: What about nuclear? All--in all realistic assessment, don't we need more nuclear power in order to wean ourselves off of those same fuels that are contaminating the world?
    SEN. OBAMA: I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has--it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns."
    
    2 RepliesReply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      nostalgia
      May 6, 2008, 7:26 a.m.
      "So it has not been an effective option. That doesn't mean that it can't be an effective option, but we're going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be--we've, we've got to look at every possible option."
      You know, I've said the same thing about coal. I have a aggressive goal of reducing carbon emissions, and coal is a dirty fuel right now. But if we can figure out how to sequester carbon and burn clean coal, we're the Saudi Arabia of coal, and I don't think that we can dismiss out of hand the use of coal as part of our energy mix. What we are going to have to understand, though, is, is that global warming is real, it is serious and that whatever options we come up with, if they are not addressing the fact that the planet is getting warmer, then we are failing not just this generation, but future generations."
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24445166/page/4/
      
      Reply | Report!
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      
      Lurch
      June 19, 2008, 1:40 p.m.
      That`s what we call a thinking man`s answer.
      The non-thinking man`s answer, `make it 700 nukes`.
      
      Reply | Report!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

ind06
May 5, 2008, 11:42 p.m.
I'm sure we could do this if we rolled our sleeves up! The problem is, where are we going to put them. Face it, no one wants a cooling tower going up in their backyard, or within fifty MILES of their backyard. I'm sure we can get them built, I just don't know how we're going to fit all 700 on McCain's lawn.

2 RepliesReply | Report!
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  
  nostalgia
  May 6, 2008, 7:33 a.m.
  France and Japan don't seem to have the aversion to nuclear plants that we have
  In Japan: Nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority since 1973. Today 55 reactors provide some 30% of the country's electricity and this is expected to increase to at least 40% by 2017.
  France: France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
  France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
  France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
  An electric company in North TX is going to build 2 nuclear plants
  Unfortunately, no US companies have kept up with the new technology so the contact is going to a company from Japan - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Tokyo
  
  1 ReplyReply | Report!
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    
    Lurch
    June 19, 2008, 1:51 p.m.
    > France: France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
    We once had an energy security policy too...what happened to that thing?
    Oh yeah, Reagan killed it.
    I like Obama`s platform. Explore all kinds of alternate fuel systems, technologies, and resources. Don`t move from one big multinational based addiction to another. Create competition and a level playing field, then let the markets and science figure out the winner.
    Oh, btw, France`s nuclear corporation (EDF) started by a communist and was 100% socialist til the mid 2000`s. Now, the govt owns only 70% of shares, only. EDF is the largest energy producer in the world, with some of the lowest prices in the world. Although partial privatization has caused prices to climb slightly.
    
    Reply | Report!

Submitted By:

Aidenag

Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment. If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions ...

Also submitted: