McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030

McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:04:51 PM)
I suppose the Dems will be against this as well... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:09:49 PM)
I have to disagree with him on the base to build them being gone. There are plans for better reactors than any in this country just waiting to be allowed to break ground. The problem is that people have been fed so many lies and half truths that they don't want them around. I learned a great deal working at a nuke power plant. They are cleaner to live around than the coal plants and less likely to make you sick.

thornhappy -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:09:56 PM)
It may work better to throw the clean coal money into the effort to standardize and develop waste-disposal efforts for his planned plants. The French make nuclear work by investing/subsidizing heavily in the industry. (Although some will call that "throwing money at the problem" and "socialist".) thornhappy

JohnSteed1967 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I suppose the Dems will be against this as well... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_el_pr/mccain I am against it, WHY? More spent fuel that we can't get rid of, long term solution to a short term problem. Also I can't put a reactor in my car, and get me to work!

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy It may work better to throw the clean coal money into the effort to standardize and develop waste-disposal efforts for his planned plants. The French make nuclear work by investing/subsidizing heavily in the industry. (Although some will call that "throwing money at the problem" and "socialist".) thornhappy One such plant can produce 100s of good paying jobs in an area that needs them. It can cut the costs of electric bills for people bu producing energy inexpensively. It causes less harm to the areas around it than the ash and emissions from coal plants. Don't waste money on clean coal because thats as slippery as a waterbed covered in baby oil and not as fun. I actually have to agree that this would be a problem to throw a great deal of money at.

JohnSteed1967 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I learned a great deal working at a nuke power plant. They are cleaner to live around than the coal plants and less likely to make you sick. Maybe while they are active but you know that at some point they become so radioactive they have to be shut down and then guarded for eternity. Also you don't live in SC. We have the Savanna River Nuclear Plant. Making Bomb Grade Uranium and Plutonium since 1947 or so. Also the home of the Southeastern Compact. Where spent nuclear material has been house for just about as long.. I was comforted during the cold war that we were Russia's number one target after DC.

popeye1250 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:40:46 PM)
Republicans want to build powerplants and drill offshore for oil and gas. Democrats, no powerplants, no offshore drilling. Who do YOU think is going to win the presidential race in November? Not that I like McCain or anything, I'm just thinking that it may really "pay" me to fly over to Ireland and place a bet at "Paddy Powers- Bookmakers" on the election. Say $10,000 or so. D.A., you want to make some money? Can you get us cheap flights to Ireland!

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:43:32 PM)
Everyone thinks that they are the number one target after DC. I'm curious about how long it takes for them to become so radioactive that they have to be shut down. The plant I woked at was built in 71 or 72. They just got a renewal for another 30 years I believe. And although I might not live in SC near places you mentioned, I have lived near a coal plant and near a nuke plant. I worked at both of them. The coal plant was a filthy, nasty, disgusting place. Having had the opportunity to live and work at both, I have to say the nuke plants are far better for everyone than the coal burners.

popeye1250 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:47:02 PM)
Irishknight, and just look at France! They have had tremendous success with Nuclear plants! Perhaps KittinSol could "educate" us about France's nuclear plants?

kittinSol -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 5:53:13 PM)
Do your own homework.

pahunkboy -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:05:13 PM)
[3 mile island] http://www.tmia.com/ some interesting info here. I think we need some, but I also think it needs to be done wisely. I dont know what democrats have to do with this topic.

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:05:43 PM)
I was just doing some homework, in fact. I can't find a single resource that says nuclear power plants have to be shut down after so many years and guarded for eternity. I did find a company that is involved in demolitions of closed nuclear power facilities. I looked up the Savanah River Facility. Its primary purpose was not as a power plant. It was designed and built to create weapons grade material. I won't doubtthat they fed power into the grid but none of their reactor are reported as having been online since 92. One is listed as still in standby which would definately be cause for guards. This is not the type of facility being proposed. And, yes, France is having tremendous luck with their plants. The reason is because they don't have an entire subculture built on frightening people into fighting against nuclear power. In America people think "Nucular" is a four letter word. And before anyone brings it up, 3 mile island released less radiation into the air than is given off by a handful of Brazil nuts or a piece of the old red "fiesta ware" that people used to buy. Okay, he mentioned it while I was typing.

OutOfExile -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:09:23 PM)
I like the idea - we have to do something to free ourselves from oil, and I like that McCain is taking the initiative. I still probably won't vote for him (or Obama), but it's good to know that he has some decent ideas if he ends up winning.

bipolarber -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:12:37 PM)
Hummm... let's phrase it another way... "McCain Wishes To Build 45 New Potential Terrorist Targets That Could Obliterate Large Sections of the US With Radioactive Steam From Core Meltdowns." ... somehow, it's not as cheery a message, when you put it that way...

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:22:29 PM)
These things are built to hold in a nuclear reaction and radiation. They aren't made of paper.

pahunkboy -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:32:58 PM)
Ild say most are woefully out of touch with the nuclear question. It requires study. Even if it is a go, it minumin is 10 years to be up and running. PA has 12 nuclear reactor plants. I hear oposition to some high voltage lines they want to put thru the state. I see that the one utiltiy IS updating its line...which most of the country needs.... Energy efficiency has for many years been a side note. We have not maximized the effciency on much of anything. I have been measuring the watts I use in my home, compared to a few years ago- it sure was a orgy of waste per this household. Of course effeciency alone wont be the cure all- but a key peice of the puzzle.

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:35:16 PM)
Ten years? You've got to be kidding. I'll bet you they would be able to go up much faster than that... and safely too.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:40:31 PM)
quote: Hummm... let's phrase it another way... "McCain Wishes To Build 45 New Potential Terrorist Targets That Could Obliterate Large Sections of the US With Radioactive Steam From Core Meltdowns." ... somehow, it's not as cheery a message, when you put it that way... Well to phrase it that way would be dumb. We already have 104 commercial nuclear power plants operating. We get 20% of our power from nuclear energy, and we are the world's largest commercial supplier of nuclear power. American power plants are specifically designed to contain meltdowns. The worst thing a terrorist could do would be to get into the control room (past all the heavily armed guards.) and shut down the coolant source. I am not an expert, but that's not an easy thing to do from what I read. You can't cause a meltdown with a truck bomb or by crashing an airplane into a plant. If you want to worry about terrorists causing industrial accidents; than the best place to look is a chemical plant, a refinery, or a city's water supply. Nuclear power is safe, clean, and efficient.

pahunkboy -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:44:11 PM)
ok- one problem is plutonium. it is in short supply. there is only so much of it on the earth. we are building a plant to make plutonium somewhere in the mountain states. Ild say McCains plan is worth further review.

slvemike4u -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:48:05 PM)
I'm for anything that reduce's America's reliance on oil imports...with some reservations..like where are they building these things...there will definitly be the usual outcry of "not in my backyard"...McCain's mention of clean -coal ,isn't that an oxy-moron...I mean i see where he mentioned developing new technology...but has it stands now there is no such thing as clean-coal..streamlining the time it takes to get approval for these new Nuclear Plants I would hope doesn't mean cutting corners with saftey...

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125