Skip to main content

John McCain on Nuclear Energy

By

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.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous 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/
September 5, 2008 at 12:37 AM
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.
September 5, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Anonymous 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.
September 5, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more