McCain says wants 45 new reactors by 2030

[Darth Fanboy]

Link

SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - Republican John McCain would put the United States on course to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 if elected president, the Arizona senator said on Wednesday.

McCain, his party's presumptive nominee in this fall's presidential election, is laying out his plan to make the country energy independent.

"If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America," he said.

There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide at present, which generate about 20 percent of the nation's power supply.

McCain has argued forcefully for further nuclear plants, seeing them as part of a solution to fighting climate change and establishing U.S. energy independence.

Sen. Barack Obama, McCain's presumptive Democratic opponent, has issued supportive statements about nuclear power but has set no outright goal for building plants.

Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants and solving nuclear proliferation concerns are also paramount, Obama's campaign said on its website.

The key roadblock to new U.S. nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.

McCain, speaking at a campaign event on energy in the electoral battleground state of Missouri, added he would set aside $2 billion a year for research and development into clean coal technology.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Christian Wiessner)

I'm torn as to whether I should look at this favorably, or if this is just just another case of McCain telling people what they want to hear.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Why do you think people want to hear about more Nuclear power?

[Darth Fanboy]

Why do you think people want to hear about more Nuclear power?

Uh gee, I dunno, because we're having an energy crisis maybe and the people who aren't actively praying for Jesus to open his own chain of never-empty discount gas stations are starting to realize that something needs to be done about?

[Rogue 9]

Why do you think people want to hear about more Nuclear power?

Uh gee, I dunno, because we're having an energy crisis maybe and the people who aren't actively praying for Jesus to open his own chain of never-empty discount gas stations are starting to realize that something needs to be done about?

Yes, but the "something" usually involves agitating for further renewable energy, like wind and solar. Nuclear is the best way we have, but there's too much fear of it. I seriously doubt this is purely a political stunt.

In my view, this is one of the few good outcomes a McCain presidency could have. It's not enough to motivate me to vote for him over Senator Obama, but increased nuclear power is the best way to reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels for energy.

[CaptainZoidberg]

In my view, this is one of the few good outcomes a McCain presidency could have. It's not enough to motivate me to vote for him over Senator Obama, but increased nuclear power is the best way to reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels for energy.

Well, nuclear power is the reason why I voted for McCain in the primaries.

But if you look at Obama's ties to Exelon (nuclear power company), he might be even better than McCain.

[Shroom Man 777]

I like McCain. He is a man who is firmly against torture.

[Surlethe]

This is good; it would make a McCain presidency more bearable if he followed through on it.

[Master of Ossus]

At least some politician is willing to speak up for nuclear power.

[Admiral Valdemar]

At least some politician is willing to speak up for nuclear power.

Which is good. I don't know about Americans, but over here we have this trend of politicians promising things and then, horribly, not delivering. I may just be wrong here, of course.

[General Zod]

At least some politician is willing to speak up for nuclear power.

Which is good. I don't know about Americans, but over here we have this trend of politicians promising things and then, horribly, not delivering. I may just be wrong here, of course.

Considering all of McCain's flip-flopping over things he might or might not have said, I wouldn't be surprised if he conveniently forgets that he ever made this promise if he got elected.

[Hawkwings]

At least some politician is willing to speak up for nuclear power.

Which is good. I don't know about Americans, but over here we have this trend of politicians promising things and then, horribly, not delivering. I may just be wrong here, of course.

This is common to all politicians. It's just the degree that's different.

[Glocksman]

I like McCain. He is a man who is firmly against torture.

The snark is strong with this one.

just another case of McCain telling people what they want to hear.

Exactly.
McCain's flip flopped so much that he makes John Kerry look like the Rock of Gibraltar by comparison.

McCain's 'YouTube problem' is that there's a cottage industry of both liberals and pissed off conservatives splicing clips of him saying one thing and then turning around and saying the exact opposite later.

I favor nuclear power but I don't under any circumstances trust John McCain to deliver.

[Gil Hamilton]

Then again, Obama is in favor of nuclear power too. While its good that McCain is coming forward and saying "Yay, nuclear!" I don't think that sets him apart. At this point, the anti-nuclear crowd is fighting a lost battle.

The problem right now is that while most people want nuclear power, they don't want the nuclear powerplant anywhere near them. This becomes a problem when literally everyone is a NIMBY.

A gentleman who is currently involved in nuclear waste disposal as a chemist that spoke at my school outlined the problem as such: in the 80s they decided to add a new set of regulations to nuclear power and waste disposal. Every single person who read the proposal thought they were great ideas, stamped them, and it went through without friction... after a decade of bouncing around the government. Even when every single person on an issue of nuclear power AGREES COMPLETELY in government, due to bureaucracy and such, it takes a long time to go from proposal to implementation. Now try to do that with a nuclear powerplant, where any site you might want to pick is almost certainly going to have large local opposition. The gentlemen stated that in the future, people are going to be a whole lot more friendly to nuclear power, but by the time that people are actually demanding nuke plants be built, even if it is a few miles from where they live, it's going to be well too late. He gave the impression that the 90s were when alot of this infrastructure should have started being constructed, but with a strong policy and a miracle at the local level, it's not too late now.

[Adrian Laguna]

I wouldn't be opposed to putting a nuclear powerplant in the University of Chicago's squash courts, it worked so well last time.

[Imperial Overlord]

I wouldn't be opposed to putting a nuclear powerplant in the University of Chicago's squash courts, it worked so well last time.

How about the School of Economics? After all the damage they've done they deserve to be nuked.

[Durandal]

I have no problem admitting that I agree with John McCain and Dick Cheney regarding nuclear power, and I can confidently say he's not really pandering to anyone due to the effectiveness of Greenpeace's smear campaign against nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, that's not enough to overcome the vast gulf of things I disagree with them about.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think a recent Zogby poll said that over 60% of Americans are now in favour of building more nuclear plants. What bothers me about this is that a lot of people have unreasonable standards when it comes to nuclear power, yet they don't apply their reasoning to other industries. When I debate this, people argue as if it shouldn't be done because it's not 100% safe or because the waste issue isn't 100% perfect.


Zogby

This poll was dismissed though, on the forum I posted it originally. I got it from SEA, so I trusted it.

[Qwerty 42]

I have no problem admitting that I agree with John McCain and Dick Cheney regarding nuclear power, and I can confidently say he's not really pandering to anyone due to the effectiveness of Greenpeace's smear campaign against nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, that's not enough to overcome the vast gulf of things I disagree with them about.

I'm in the same boat. I actually agree with the Republicans more about power at this point, although that's not a crucial enough point to me yet to justify their tearing of the Constitution.

[montypython]

Recycling nuclear fuel through breeder reactors would help cut down the amount of waste, but no one seems interested in that.