Skip to main content

John McCain on Nuclear Energy


Here's John McCain on nuclear energy:
My fellow Americans, when I'm president, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

Sen. Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It's an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It's time for us to show the world again how Americans lead.

There you are. You can now read all four candidates on nuclear energy (Obama, Biden, Palin). Of course, none of us are single-issue voters, but now you can decide who suits your nuclear tastes best. On to Mississippi and the first debate!

Picture of John McCain. That's a flag image behind him.

Comments

Mike Sivertsen said…
‘When you tell people that 70 years of electricity for a typical four-bedroom family home leaves just one Coke can full of [high-level nuclear] waste, they are impressed and reassured. And all the waste from the whole US civilian nuclear power programme over the last 49 years would cover just one football field, about twenty feet high. Compare that to the trillions of tons of carbon waste and chemicals released into the atmosphere from fossil fuels – not to mention 5,000 people killed in coal mining accidents every year.’

Brazil’s experience in 2001 provides both comfort and guidance. By taking on misrepresentations, misunderstanding and lies and exposing the dishonest tactics of Greenpeace on many issues, the Brazilian Nuclear Energy Association undermined the credibility of a campaign against a new nuclear power plant. Pro-nuclear groups got their facts right and ran a well-organised campaign. By the end, the president of Greenpeace was forced out, its ‘aura of credibility’ was destroyed and the organisation simply ceased to campaign against nuclear power in Brazil for over five years.

Source:
Energy: the answer is not blowing in the wind, Dec 2007

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4173/
Ray Lightning said…
Drilling on offshore+arctic together will show results after 5 years and will produce a maximum of 80 million barrels per year (which is 1/20th of US oil imports of 1500 million barrels per year). How does McCain intend to solve the remaining 19/20th of the problem ? And prevent the flight of the remaining 665 billion dollars (out of a total of 700 billion dollars) to the middle east. Vaguely mentioning nuclear, clean coal blah blah does not amount to a solution.

Drilling for more is not even a stop-gap solution. It is a completely insignificant 1/20th of the solution.

The statement that Obama opposes nuclear energy is a lie. Obama has clearly mentioned that he welcomes safe nuclear power, and that he wants to invest significant amount of money in re-using nuclear waste. The second part is not mentioned at all by McCain. So, the clear difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain has no plans on breeder reactors, fuel reprocessing etc..

Once-through U235 nuclear reactors can power our society for not more than 60 years.

If you care about cheap and sustainable energy, vote for Obama.
D. Kosloff said…
Ray,

We already have safe nuclear power. Did Senator Obama welcome it from his elementary school?

Where are Senator Obama's plans for building breeder reactors?

Where are Senator Obama's plans for reprocessing?

Of course voting for Senator Obama or Senator McCain will not address anybody's cares about having cheap energy.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …