Article

2008-08-06 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 02:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Thats a start - Drill Here Drill NOW - and BUILD NOW!

Posted by OldSpook 2008-08-06 02:23|| 2008-08-06 02:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Ten times that would be a better number and bring on the electric car.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2008-08-06 04:01|| 2008-08-06 04:01|| Front Page Top

#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">mhw 2008-08-06 09:40|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-06 09:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 12:38|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 12:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 13:26|| Front Page Top

#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">Old Patriot 2008-08-06 13:42|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-06 13:42|| Front Page Top

#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.">Mitch H. 2008-08-06 14:34|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-06 14:34|| Front Page Top

#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">Rob06 2008-08-06 15:18|| 2008-08-06 15:18|| Front Page Top

#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">mhw 2008-08-06 16:06|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-06 16:06|| Front Page Top

#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.">Mitch H. 2008-08-06 17:56|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2008-08-06 17:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 18:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 18:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-08-06 22:39|| Front Page Top

23:55 McZoid
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 McZoid
23:37 3dc
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:14 trailing wife
23:01 Raj
22:51 tu3031
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:39 ed
22:36 Frank G
22:34 ed
22:23 Jusose Darling of the Infinitesmal7029
22:16 Fred
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:02 Red Dawg
21:57 Angie Schultz
21:53 OldSpook
21:50 JosephMendiola
21:45 JosephMendiola
21:33 JosephMendiola