Glow and Behold

McCain calls for 45 new nuclear reactors in U.S. by 2030

Posted at 7:51 AM on 19 Jun 2008

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, at a campaign event Wednesday in Missouri, called for 45 new nuclear reactors to be built in the United States by 2030, with a longer-term goal of 100 new reactors. Existing nuke plants currently provide some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but no new nuke plants have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s due to the enormous costs of nuclear-plant construction, and public squeamishness over radiation and waste concerns. In his remarks, McCain argued that the major obstacles to expanding the use of nuclear power are political, and that the power source has suffered because of the "mindset of those who prefer to buy time and hope that our energy problems will somehow solve themselves. ... If we're looking for a vast supply of reliable and low-cost electricity, with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability, that's the working definition of nuclear energy." McCain also talked up clean coal technology at the event and pledged $2 billion a year in federal spending to "make clean coal a reality."

sources: Associated Press, The New York Times
new in Muckraker: McCain goes to Springfield, talks up nukes and coal

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (5 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Goes to show you!

The current republican candidate is just as brainless as the current republican president.

Nature Magazine recently published an article demonstrating the ease that terrorists could come on the premises and tamper with reactors or whatever they want. The security systems were supposed to be in place after 9/11, but have not been and McCain says we need more? This is pure folly!

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

by mtvyfan at 12:18 PM on 19 Jun 2008

The obstacle to nuke-clear is radioactivity

Senator MyCane needs to read the work of Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Looking at lifetime costs, nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity. And then you have the reactor contamination and waste fuel issues with a half life of 50,000 years.

The folks with the "mindset of those who prefer to buy time and hope that our energy problems will somehow solve themselves" are those presently in office.

Spend the $2 billion a year on pollution free renewables. The only clean coal is what stays in the ground.

Cheers.

by roncastle at 12:41 PM on 19 Jun 2008

Clean Coal is a mirage

Here's what's behind the wizard's curtain:

"Capture" CO2 from the very hot exhaust gases of electric power plants. How? Condense it with BIG ammonia refrigeration units. (Condensed CO2 is dry ice at atmospheric pressure-- must get VERY cold to condense. Does that kind of cooling system require energy? Yes, I'll bet my chemical engineering degree, it's vast. And the "capture" system would be comparable in cost to the rest of the power plant.)
"Sequester" the CO2 by pumping it into depleted natural gas (methane) formations, displacing gas fuel. (Some net energy recovery is possible there. But gas is a fossil fuel; ITs emissions would need to be captured and sequestered too.)

Best estimates: at least 25% of coal's net energy would be needed to capture and sequester its carbon dioxide. Wind generated electricity is currently available (my area offers "power choice") at ~ 20% more than coal-generated electricity. But wind will almost certainly get cheaper as we learn more about how to build turbines and can balance loads better.

Yes, the only clean coal is that which stays in the ground. And the energy economics of "clean coal" processes suggests strongly that money spent on wind would get us a lot more energy than money spent on clean coal.

My take: Talk about "clean coal" or carbon capture and sequestration is a stalling tactic to justify building more coal-burning electricty generation capacity. The industry knows it's a loser and DOE is willing to throw research money around (though actually not very much, so far) so it appears to be doing something about global warming.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax with dividend for individuals would create the right signals for development of wind energy and would quickly make coal generation un-economical.

Check out www.carbontax.org for information and news.

by F James Handley at 2:13 PM on 19 Jun 2008

Will Cindy pay for them?

Who is going to fund these new nukes? Not banks, they won't touch them at 6 to 9 bucks per watt. McCain only knows what his staff, lobbyists all, put on his teleprompter.

At least he doesn't have an earpiece, to listen to Condi tell him what to say, like duuhbya. Yet.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:01 PM on 19 Jun 2008

Just 2 billion?...

...Considerin' that the failed Future-Gen project alone cost several times that, methinks he'll have a hard time (thankfully) spurrin' an entire industry with a measly 2 bill.

by Tasermons Partner at 8:58 PM on 19 Jun 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?