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
Home Front: Politix
McCain Calls to Build 45 Nuclear Plants
2008-08-06
After dueling for days with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over whether to allow offshore oil drilling and how much to inflate tires, Sen. John McCain today turned the discussion nuclear.

The Arizona Republican toured the 20-year-old Enrico Fermi Nuclear Plant near Detroit today in a campaign effort to portray himself as an energy problem solver. McCain used the visit to the plant to highlight his call to build dozens of new atomic power plants in the United States and to distinguish himself from his likely Democratic opponent.

"I proposed a plan to build 45 new nuclear plants before the year 2030. And that would provide 700,000 jobs for American workers," McCain told the crowd of reporters that gathered at the plant.

McCain said he believes nuclear power is a viable way to produce electricity and decrease America's reliance on foreign oil. Some experts agree.

"The 40 or so power plants are consistent with some of our analysis and what would be required to the next 20 to 30 years to provide electricity at a reasonable cost," said Chris Larsen of the Electric Power Research Institute.

McCain accused Obama of opposing expanding the use of nuclear power. "Sen. Obama has said that expanding our nuclear power plants 'doesn't make sense for America,'" McCain said. "He also says no to nuclear storage and no to reprocessing. I could not disagree more."

However, Obama does not completely oppose more nuclear power plants. Instead, he favors going forward only at a time when it's proven that it can be done safely. McCain said that the time is now. "My experience with nuclear power goes back many years to being stationed on the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier [the USS Enterprise]," McCain said. "I knew it was safe then and I know it's safe now."

The McCain campaign believes it is scoring points with voters by hitting Obama hard on the issue of energy. McCain strategists have tried to brand Obama as entirely opposed to nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. This week, McCain ridiculed Obama for his comments that, by inflating your tires, Americans can improve gas mileage. "Instead of calling on his party's leadership to return to Congress and carve out an 'all of the above' approach to America's energy crisis, Barack Obama would rather tell commuters to inflate their car tires," McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "Barack Obama does not have the judgment or experience to understand that Americans aren't choosing between offshore drilling and inflating their car tires -- they're demanding action now."

The Sierra Club released a video today in which the environmental group claimed that McCain prohibited nuclear waste to pass through his home state of Arizona. But the clip of McCain the group used to back up the claim stopped short, before McCain added the comment, "I think it can be made safe."
Posted by:Steve White

#17  ION RENSE/REDDIT > FORBES.com - FOUR OF THE TOP TEN "FASTEST DYING" US CTIES ARE IN OHIO. Michegan has TWO of said ten.

Looks like the desired, future OWG GREAT LAKES FREE TRADE ZONE AND RELATED has found its first [proto] ISSUE???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-08-06 22:39  

#16  McCain needs to get away from his command-economy plan mindset.

This is McCain's big problem. He's a child of the depression and loves the government. Not to slight his father's or his service, but the reality is that he has never, not since the moment of his birth, been part of the private economy. He has always been a government dependent.

When someone says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." he breathes a sigh of relief.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-08-06 18:49  

#15  And being on, or associated with, the Atomic Regulatory Commission does not automatically qualify you as a Nuclear Engineering Expert - no matter what the MSM might think.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-08-06 18:33  

#14  Exactly. Leave to the companies what kinds of plant equipment to use - what size, what technology, what level of investment - with a minimum of regulatory interference with a strict emphasis on safety concerns - and not made-up China-Syndrome hysterics, either.

Small platoons, people. Try not to think like Soviet five-year-planning committeemen. There *aren't* any nuclear engineering experts in the Senate, and I'm willing to bet that there aren't too many among their aides, either.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-08-06 17:56  

#13  I think Rob06 has a decent point.

The 45 new 1-2 GW reactors by 2030 will stretch our design/engineering resources.

It would be nice to have a factory or two to churn out small dumbed down modular 10-50 MW reactors.
Posted by: mhw   2008-08-06 16:06  

#12  What sized towns could be run off a reactor the size that is in the Ohio class SSBNs? How about the Nimitz class?

Would more, smaller reactors be a better idea than the super large, multi-Billion dollar energy sites?
Posted by: Rob06   2008-08-06 15:18  

#11  McCain needs to get away from his command-economy plan mindset. Roll back the overregulation, ban the fucking activists from the plant-licensing process, and stop threatening "windfall profit" over-taxation. The market will built the nuke plants needed, as they're needed, if the environmentalists and BANANA nudges and other so-called "stakeholder" parasites are banned from interfering in the decision-making process and the investors aren't threatened with potential government expropriation of their potential risk-incentives. IE, extreme profits for unusually high market risks.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-08-06 14:34  

#10  The energy issue is one the Republicans can use to retake the House, and maybe cut the Dems' lead in the Senate. I also agree with Ed. We need to add 10 nuclear power plants every year for the next 30-40 years, just to keep up with demand. We can also build another 50-100 clean-burning coal-fired plants until the nuke plants come online.

Two things that a Republican-controlled House needs to address immediately are nuisance suits by "environmentalists" whose sole purpose is to push the cost of any new project beyond its ability to be profitable, and to rein in the EPA, especially over CO2. My suggestion on the nuisance suits is to allow the energy sector to sue the "environmentalist" group bringing a suit for the added costs imposed by the legal action. It wouldn't take more than one or two lawsuits to break the Sierra Club, etc.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-08-06 13:42  

#9  They may not retire completely ed, the nuclear license is good for 30 years, after that they have to have a complete refit. That will put them in competition for labor if there are a number of plants being built at the same time though.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-08-06 13:26  

#8  45 will barely replace older nukes scheduled to retire. 200 nukes in the 1500MW class is more realistic. That will provide a nuke base load that is 50% of total electricity use. By 2030, electric cars will be common enough to make use of that extra nighttime capacity. Even better would be 3-400 nukes producing a combination of electricity, heat and hydrogen that can be used to upgrade the massive amounts of coal, shale and tar sands to liquid fuels found in North America.

Or chuck all that and inflate our tires another 5 PSI.
Posted by: ed   2008-08-06 13:02  

#7  that's okay, Iblis, i'll vote for him so you don't have to.

(my solution to California's energy issues -- 20 nuclear plants... no, i'm not your average CA resident, after all, i'm a rantburger...)
Posted by: Querent   2008-08-06 13:01  

#6  Put the breeder reactors on military installations, use them to power the coal-to-fuel plants that the military needs to build to get off the petroleum.

US Military becomes energy and fuel self-sufficient, bringing us a HUGE strategic advantage.

Plus it creates a large number of jobs - in the coal refinery and in the power plant and in their constructions. A huge boost to the economy.

Economy-Security-Military Win-Win-Win all around. Except for the Dems who oppose military, nuclear and coal.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-06 12:41  

#5  Last time I checked there were already 41 new plants in various stages of planning / permitting.

Way to lead, McCain, you piece of worthless crap for whom I will nevertheless vote.
Posted by: Iblis   2008-08-06 12:38  

#4  He should also announce he is supporting two or three thorium reactors which will be able to burn most of the left overs radiative material from the U- reactors
Posted by: mhw   2008-08-06 09:40  

#3  Ten times that would be a better number and bring on the electric car.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2008-08-06 04:01  

#2  Thats a start - Drill Here Drill NOW - and BUILD NOW!
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-08-06 02:23  

#1  McCain's right on this, of course. If the Republicans are smart enough to ride this issue properly, they can put him in the WH and at least break even in the Congress.
Posted by: Sheba Sheamble5056   2008-08-06 02:11  

00:00