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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…