You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030
2008-06-19
Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.

McCain, his party's presumptive nominee in this fall's presidential election, is laying out his plan to make the country energy independent. 'If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America,' he said.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide at present, which generate about 20 percent of the nation's power supply.

McCain has argued forcefully for further nuclear plants, seeing them as part of a solution to fighting climate change and establishing U.S. energy independence. Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's presumptive Democratic opponent, has issued supportive statements about nuclear power but has set no outright goal for building plants.

Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants and solving nuclear proliferation concerns are also paramount, Obama's campaign said on its website. The key roadblock to new U.S. nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (145 km) from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.

McCain, speaking at a campaign event on energy in the electoral battleground state of Missouri, added he would set aside $2 billion a year for research and development into clean coal technology
Posted by:Fred

#16  Ah, the waste! What to do. France has solved the waste problem. Why not set up a trade agreement with them. One ton of nuclear waste for one ton of red wine. Think like a Frenchman, trade what you don't want, like radioactive waste, for something you do want, like red wine. Problem solved.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2008-06-19 20:01  

#15  of what type - focus fusion? pebblebed - the anwers make a lot of difference as to costs to construct and maintain.
Posted by: Hupavinter Wittlesbach5870   2008-06-19 18:17  

#14  In only 22 years, the permit for the first of those 45 reactors may finally be (provisionally) approved. The environuts and NIMBY folks will tie the whole process up in court after court, requiring impossible standards be met (the site must be less radioactive than granite), there must be an escape plan for everyone within a thousand miles, it must not impact the breeding ground of a yet to be discovered endangered species, .....
I am in favor of nuclear power, but I don't have much hope for it in my lifetime.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-06-19 18:09  

#13  Only forty five?
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-06-19 16:56  

#12  Fine, just make them better than Wolf Creek. And as LH stated, get the school programs going soon.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-06-19 15:52  

#11  A friend is considering early retirement from the nuke company he works for.
Why?
He has 12 requests before the NRC and just can't deal with how slow they are. Figures he would die of old age before they ever get serious and move a tad. He thinks he might want to do something useful with the remainder of his life not sit in NRC hearings.
Posted by: 3dc   2008-06-19 14:28  

#10  Mike - I think it's as much a problem of the industry never having really reached critical mass as anything. When I was completing my engineering degrees (early-mid 90s) the common knowledge was that the nuclear industry was dead as a doornail and a graveyard for the careers of those working there. Structure it such that it is again viable and the staffing issues will abate.
Posted by: AzCat   2008-06-19 12:09  

#9  Demand creates supply.


If you pay them, they will come.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-06-19 11:15  

#8  2030 is 22 years from now. Thats time to expand appropriate university courses.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-06-19 11:13  

#7  As much as I agree with this idea, where the heck are we going to find the people and resources to build, staff, and maintain these things? IIRC the industry has always been shorthanded, and there's only a handful of companies that are Federally authorized to do the work. I think this is one of those ideas that's great in principle but impractical - at best - in practice.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2008-06-19 10:08  

#6  The good thing about this, is that it sticks it both the more extreme enviros AND to the global warming deniers at the same time. It establishes a position of taking global warming science, and the need for action, seriously, while making it clear that such concern is NOT an excuse to establish a puritan regulatory regime over the economy, as some imply.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-06-19 09:14  

#5  More on new nuclear waste tech.
Posted by: doc   2008-06-19 08:15  

#4  Just a note,

Recycling nuclear waste was originally about extracting the extremely valuable material (elements) resulting from the nuclear process.

It's irrelevant to the safety of nuclear power stations. If needs be, bury the waste in a very deep hole.
Posted by: Phil_B   2008-06-19 07:40  

#3  McCain has very shrewdly placed himself at the forefront of the issue of high oil prices with his recommendation of a moratorium on federal gas taxes, a repeal of the ban on offshore drilling and his proposals for alternative energy plans. Best of all, what he is saying makes sense and is an extension of the Republican free market philosophy.

For once Barack Obama seems slowfooted in recognizing the potency of this issue and developing any counterproposals of his own to steal his opponent's thunder.
Posted by: Gliling Lumplump3518   2008-06-19 07:05  

#2  Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants

Why I'm thinking Mecca?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-06-19 02:28  

#1  WAFF.com > GORDON BROWN: WE NEED OVER 1000 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS/STATIONS. The more, the better, for the Environment + Anti-Global Warming efforts.

REDDIT > ENERGY FROM NUCLEAR WASTE?; + CAN MANKIND RECYCLE NUCLEAR WASTES INSTEAD OF BURYING IT?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-06-19 00:14  

00:00