"measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions..."

Good to see that he's not left investors out in the cold on this one...the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety and storage categories.

But how many new manufacturing jobs can there be that aren't actually just mining or construction jobs?

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

...the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety ...

Wouldn't they be similarly encouraged if Hoffner would get some professional help to stop him from physically 'acting out'?

Loan guarantees make sense as a way to keep government honest. If it allows another 100 GW of nuclear capacity to go online, additional uranium will be required that at present prices would cost $3 billion a year. Natural gas used in its place would cost about $60 billion, including royalties that must substantially exceed $3 billion.

In the past, footdragging on nuclear has been very lucrative for City Hall; that has to stop. Loan guarantees mean their ill-gotten gains are taken from them and given to the lenders, and the prospect that this will happen makes them inclined not to bother to ill-get them in the first place.

Thus, gross-rats groups are likely to find their "interventions" becoming their own reward.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

If it's a fledgling industry without a lot of clout trying to get a few million bucks to get off the ground, it's "subsidies."

If it's an established industry with tons of lobbyists going to bat for billions in loan guarantees and billions more in hopes of making their unproven technology work ... it's "research and development."

Oh, and when Republicans are trying to cut the estate tax, it's "fighting for small business owners." When they're trying to subsidize Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Nuke, they're ... hypocrites.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

Why not offer subsidies to home owners that put in solar panels and wind collectors?  Lowering energy demands instead of trying frantically to meet them.

Green and Environmental Website | Almighty Cleanse

" the public, too, would be very encouraged by a steep increase in the safety and storage categories. "

Given that there've been no major accidents in the last 20 years, while coal kills thousands each year there's not much room for increasing safety.

" But how many new manufacturing jobs can there be that aren't actually just mining construction jobs? "

Mining and construction jobs pay very well and there are also high paying manufacturing jobs making pumps valves motors and heat exchangers, control systems etc.

" Except that McCain's "advocacy" and "support" for nuclear power have him calling for a lot more than just R&D funding. The climate plan he unveiled this week includes "loan guarantees for the construction of new [nuclear] plants and a program to assist with the first-of-its-kind engineering needs," plus "measures to further encourage investor confidence [in the nuclear industry] through improved safety, expanded manufacturing base, and waste disposal solutions. "

Yep, that's what the D in R&D is for.

McCain is right about R&D. We should raise R&D to $90 billion per year, just 2.25¢ per kilowatt hour, to maximize our options. Existing nuclear power plants would earn $18 billion per year, enough to build at least one prototype of each new reactor design, and to finance the design and construction of a facility to build floating nuclear power plants.  

Wind and solar buffs want to spend big bucks implementing existing technology, which will take us down the road behind Germany and Denmark, to high energy prices, 30 - 40 cents per kWh.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-0 ...

 Each one cent / kWh increase will cost Americans $40 billion per year. R&D is cheap.

Fossil fuels are still abundant, and will be so for many years. They provide about 70% of our electricity, 85% of all the energy that supports our lives.

Joseph Romm says we don't need more R&D, we should start building expensive wind and solar now. If we follow that advice we will be in huge trouble down the road when fossil fuel is really running out. We may have to buy expensive floating nuclear plants from other countries, with severely inflated dollars. I would rather be selling those plants to other countries.

 A huge R&D program maximizes the probability that we will develop better technology than fission, which makes it the most anti nuclear policy of all. Our goal should be to create energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuel, so the entire world can afford them

Actually the best thing McCain could do for energy would be to include a course in Energy Engineering in every high school curriculum.  That way future generations of Americans would be able to make decisions about energy based on facts and logic rather than fear and emotion.

Persons offended by nuclear energy's cutting into government's fossil fuel earnings seem convinced they can prove PA is a subsidy because nuclear is dangerous, and nuclear is dangerous because PA is a subsidy. As the late Isaac Asimov said, reasoning in a circle is the chief delight of the intellectually feeble.

Or, in this case, of 'zoomers'.

How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?