Quantcast

McCain for Nuclear Power: Good or Bad?

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent1 hour, 55 minutes ago

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies."

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded.

Later, at a news conference, McCain said he favors steps to reduce the time plant owners need to obtain the necessary permits. He suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line. He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.
I think it is a good thing, since we will need alternative fuel sources soon.

I hope safety is still the most important factor in using nuclear power, and possibly his Navy experience will duplicate our Naval safety record (0% accidents).

However, I am sure Obama will probably follow suit with his nuclear/coal plans.
 

Plummit

Monkey
Mar 12, 2002
233
0
However, I am sure Obama will probably follow suit with his nuclear/coal plans.
I can only hope. And hope that we will look at building pebble bed reactors and other forms of nuclear energy generation tech.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,198
4,987
Sleazattle
Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the last reactor was built in the US. A very long way.
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
33,285
3,908
Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the last reactor was built in the US. A very long way.
And it will continue to be a very long time before another nuclear reactor is built in the US no matter who is president.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
The only issue with nuclear energy is we still have to cut consumption WAY down. Otherwise we will generate more waste than we have rockets to use for disposal into space. After we fill Louisiana and Texas, of course.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
The only issue with nuclear energy is we still have to cut consumption WAY down. Otherwise we will generate more waste than we have rockets to use for disposal into space. After we fill Louisiana and Texas, of course.

whatever..

reducing consumption doesnt generate a single milliwatt of energy and it's energy generation that's of vastly greater importance.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
The only issue with nuclear energy is we still have to cut consumption WAY down. Otherwise we will generate more waste than we have rockets to use for disposal into space. After we fill Louisiana and Texas, of course.
Dude, to believe that consumption will ever decrease is completely unrealistic. Even if people did use less themselves, the population continues to grow. Consumption is as low right now as it will ever be in the future. Book it.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
whatever..

reducing consumption doesnt generate a single milliwatt of energy and it's energy generation that's of vastly greater importance.
That's correct, if you happen to be a retard.

Even most Americans, as stupid, ignorant, and wasteful as they generally are, have figured out that if they don't buy a 6000lb SUV with a 400 horsepower engine, they will use less gas. I think you even managed to figure that out, right?

Markets don't work if you only focus on half of them, you idiot. Demand matters as much as supply does.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,198
4,987
Sleazattle
That's correct, if you happen to be a retard.

Even most Americans, as stupid, ignorant, and wasteful as they generally are, have figured out that if they don't buy a 6000lb SUV with a 400 horsepower engine, they will use less gas. I think you even managed to figure that out, right?

Markets don't work if you only focus on half of them, you idiot. Demand matters as much as supply does.
The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.
Yes, but as "green" becomes the new black, buildings and systems continue to improve. As energy costs increase, companies will continue to look at places where it can be cut.

Portland has a huge industry evolving around energy efficient retro fitting of old downtown buildings. I know Portland is far more hippie than 90% of the South, but eventually they will have to come around.

Nuke power isn't even a consideration for at least 5 more years. A lot more pain will be felt between now and then and consumption will come down ahead of it. If nuke power cost the same (or more) from a bottom line standpoint, then companies will continue to improve.

Maybe I'm just an optimistic jackass, but it sure beats being n8.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.
Haha! I have never turned on the heat or the AC in my apartment! Love the SF weather!
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
whatever..

reducing consumption doesnt generate a single milliwatt of energy and it's energy generation that's of vastly greater importance.
wat


You know how supply and demand works right?

We will get better results if we work to cut energy needs/consumption as well as increase production. After all, every watt you don't need is free to be used somewhere else...
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.
It's official, you are in fact retarded. Unfortunately, there is no medical cure for retardation. Sorry to bring you such bad news, but fortunately you are too retarded to care.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
It's official, you are in fact retarded. Unfortunately, there is no medical cure for retardation. Sorry to bring you such bad news, but fortunately you are too retarded to care.

this coming from someone who actually believes you can conserve your way out of an energy shortage..

that's as dumb as thinking you can tax your way out of a recession.



and u call me retarded??!



:rofl:
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
cool, i'm filing this under "who gives flying a sh1t what you claim to be"...
How in the hell do you come straight off of an enraged stereotype bashing tirade claiming you don't care what people claim to be?

It's easier to argue a point when you don't contradict yourself by arguing it.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
How in the hell do you come straight off of an enraged stereotype bashing tirade claiming you don't care what people claim to be?

It's easier to argue a point when you don't contradict yourself by arguing it.


what's far more amusing is that i wasnt addressing you initially (i didnt quote you)... but i'm going with it now.



:p
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
this coming from someone who actually believes you can conserve your way out of an energy shortage..

and u call me retarded??!



:rofl:
When have I EVER said conservation was a cure for the energy shortage?

What I said (and have said MANY times) is that you have to reduce consumption while increasing supply from something other than oil/coal. Demand > Supply = shortage.

Much the way you have to reduce spending while increasing taxes to lower debt. But I guess that isn't covered in the Fox News agenda, so you wouldn't understand.

And yes, I called you retarded.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
When have I EVER said conservation was a cure for the energy shortage?

What I said (and have said MANY times) is that you have to reduce consumption while increasing supply from something other than oil/coal. Demand > Supply = shortage.

Much the way you have to reduce spending while increasing taxes to lower debt. But I guess that isn't covered in the Fox News agenda, so you wouldn't understand.

And yes, I called you retarded.
you mean the failed Jimmy Carter policies?
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
If McCain says cut taxes and spend makes sense when we are more than 9 trillion dollars in debt it must be a sound policy... despite all logic and contradiction.

Right? Guys...right?
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
Naw im not a paulsy.

I do not like McCain however. Bush 2.0, toe the party line, contradictions in policy, suck up, etc.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,198
4,987
Sleazattle
Yes, but as "green" becomes the new black, buildings and systems continue to improve. As energy costs increase, companies will continue to look at places where it can be cut.

Portland has a huge industry evolving around energy efficient retro fitting of old downtown buildings. I know Portland is far more hippie than 90% of the South, but eventually they will have to come around.

Nuke power isn't even a consideration for at least 5 more years. A lot more pain will be felt between now and then and consumption will come down ahead of it. If nuke power cost the same (or more) from a bottom line standpoint, then companies will continue to improve.

Maybe I'm just an optimistic jackass, but it sure beats being n8.

Extra insulation and solar panels, although a good idea, still wont run steel mills and factories. Nuclear is still the best option for a lot of situations.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
you mean the failed Jimmy Carter policies?
I don't know, I was 6 and didn't pay much attention to it back then. But history hasn't proven his policies were worse than the current ones.

I know he was smart enough to have solar panels installed on the white house grounds (until Regan decided it was too hippie or whatever).
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Naw im not a paulsy.

I do not like McCain however. Bush 2.0, toe the party line, contradictions in policy, suck up, etc.
well, i am no friend of mccain... but he sure beats the hell out having the most liberal senator in the Congress as president with a irresponsible democratic controlled congress....

..furthermore, Bush 2.0 totally trumps Carter's 2nd Term... i remember those years.



:shudder:
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
Extra insulation and solar panels, although a good idea, still wont run steel mills and factories. Nuclear is still the best option for a lot of situations.
Agreed, but it's not the ONLY option, is all I'm saying. People (n8 included) seem to think there is some silver bullet that will make everything OK. "If we could just drill off shore, gas would be a buck 'o five".

Plus, you can't just drop a nuke plant in downtown Manhattan, or any other place where you need power right now. You need to take advantage of all the options and decide what works best for each situation. There isn't even enough space in California to meet current demand if you tried to switch to nuke at current consumption levels.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,185
17
TN
Agreed, but it's not the ONLY option, is all I'm saying. People (n8 included) seem to think there is some silver bullet that will make everything OK. "If we could just drill off shore, gas would be a buck 'o five".

Plus, you can't just drop a nuke plant in downtown Manhattan, or any other place where you need power right now. You need to take advantage of all the options and decide what works best for each situation. There isn't even enough space in California to meet current demand if you tried to switch to nuke at current consumption levels.
Well, you can't exactly drop enough wind mills or solar panels in manhattan to power the place at current consumption either. And truth be told, a nuclear plant produces a heck of a lot more power in a lot smaller area than the best solar panel or windmills could ever hope to. As far as Im concerned, outside of the southwest maybe, nuclear is pretty much THE magic bullet if we intend to replace coal.

Edit:
And also, the reality of the situation is that people at large will only cut back on usage when it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain the status quo. If a company sees that it can save a bunch of money by cutting back usage, it may indeed do that, but the savings will be applied to expand the business elsewhere, so just as much energy is going to be used no matter what.
 
Last edited:

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Agreed, but it's not the ONLY option, is all I'm saying. People (n8 included) seem to think there is some silver bullet that will make everything OK. "If we could just drill off shore, gas would be a buck 'o five".

Plus, you can't just drop a nuke plant in downtown Manhattan, or any other place where you need power right now. You need to take advantage of all the options and decide what works best for each situation. There isn't even enough space in California to meet current demand if you tried to switch to nuke at current consumption levels.
no one ever said there was a cure all silver bullet, but the process to address increasing consumption levels needs to start now.

Coal is fine, natural gas is fine but nukes can generate far more power and are more efficient (you should cream your jeans on that alone)..


Drilling off the west/east/Fl coast should be on the table for discussion right now. Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...

we also need to see why our oil companies are exporting oil at a rate of 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)...
 
Last edited:

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.
GM is certainly being innovative about their SUV's... by halting production.

GM to halt major overhaul of pickups, SUVs

By JEFF KAROUB – 2 hours ago

DETROIT (AP) — General Motors Corp. is indefinitely halting a major overhaul of its full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles as it deals with a drastic drop in sales of those products.

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said Thursday the automaker instead will work on more modest updates and enhancements as it shifts resources toward higher-mileage vehicles. The move has been largely spurred by skyrocketing gas prices that have radically changed customers' buying habits, he said.

"We're delaying it — at least until we have a better sense of where the market is going," he said. "There's now so much uncertainty of where the full-size truck market is going, primarily because of the increase in fuel prices."

U.S. pickup sales in May fell more than 38 percent, and the company has said the market declined more rapidly than expected last month. Detroit-based GM announced this month it was closing Oshawa, Ontario, and three other pickup truck and sport utility vehicle factories as $4 per gallon gas has caused sales to tumble.

Wilkinson declined to talk about financial ramifications of the plan, but said it's no secret that pickups and SUVs have been a major center for GM and its rivals and the sales dive in the segment has been acutely felt.

"This allows us to shift resources to other programs that we think can generate more business for GM," he said. "One of the challenges is we need to be able to get a good return for our cars."

He said the strategy has started to pay off with strong sales of cars such as the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu.

On the truck and SUV front, Wilkinson said GM believes the segment will continue to be competitive even without a major redesign. The company plans updates that includes hybrid versions of its truck lineup this fall, and is looking at new powertrain options, such as diesel.

"Nobody should interpret this as us backing away from a commitment to the full-size truck market," he said. "We're not backing away from an aggressive role, but it will be a smaller market. We'll put the appropriate resources toward it."

Wilkinson said record-high gas prices aren't the only issue. Automakers also are dealing with a new federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) law requiring them to raise gas mileage of their vehicles.

"Even if prices hadn't taken a sharp spike ... CAFE was going to force changes in the full-size truck market anyhow," he said.

Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with Global Insight, calls the shift a "prudent" move that doesn't jeopardize GM's competitive position.

He said Ford's next big pickup development doesn't come for a couple years, when it hopes to launch a smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient pickup dubbed the F-100.

Bragman said it's particularly wise for GM to wait as lawmakers iron out the CAFE regulations.

"This simply allows GM to delay and ... redirect some money toward development of more fuel-efficient vehicles," he said. "It lets them wait and see a little bit in terms of what they need to do."

Ford President of the Americas Mark Fields said his company continually monitors the marketplace and could adjust its product development plans as well.

The company is rolling out a new F-150 pickup truck in the fall, so it has plenty of time to evaluate work on the next generation pickup, Fields said.

"As we see changes in the marketplace, we'll plan our production plans accordingly," he said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

GM shares fell 18 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $14.71 in afternoon trading, after touching a 52-week low of $14.39 earlier in the session.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
no one ever said there was a cure all silver bullet, but the process to address increasing consumption levels needs to start now.

Coal is fine, natural gas is fine but nukes can generate far more power and are more efficient (you should cream your jeans on that alone)..

Drilling off the west/east/Fl coast should be on the table for discussion right now. Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...
I agree there is no silver bullet.

Increasing drilling, nuclear, coal, alternative fuel sources, and conservation should all be done.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,714
3,727
Portland, OR
Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...

we also need to see why our oil companies are exporting oil at a rate of 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)...
Because we ALL know that following the Chinese will get us into heaven.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
government's responsibility is not to dump money into renewable energy, that's the free market place's job. Dumping money into Iraq either will or wont pay-off in the long run, but that remains to be seen. Bottom line is that we are there and need to be for the time being.