WTG Big John! Nuclear power! YAY!

[Okla-homey]

I know some here will accuse me of cheerleading, but I don't GAD because I've been preaching this for years!

IMHO, every day we don't utilize nuclear power is a day wasted.


McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors
By DAVID ESPO

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies."

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded.

Later, at a news conference, McCain said he favors steps to reduce the time plant owners need to obtain the necessary permits. He suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line. He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.

In an appearance before an audience at Missouri State University, McCain also said, "We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."

Shortly after he spoke, a participant in a campaign-organized round-table discussion of energy, retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, said obtaining the necessary construction permits can take five years. "We should be able to cut that in half," added Jones, a former NATO commander who is now chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber Institute for 21st Century Energy. He also is on the board of Chevron.

Jones flew to Missouri aboard the campaign's chartered jet although, ironically, Democrats recently disclosed that his name has figured in Obama campaign discussions of potential Democratic vice presidential running mates.

McCain's motorcade drove by a few dozen sign-carrying demonstrators protesting the Iraq War. One audience member interrupted his remarks by standing and shouting that the Arizona senator had taken millions from the oil industry.

A dramatic spike in worldwide oil prices has pushed the cost of gasoline to $4 a gallon and more, and made energy a domestic political issue in a way it has not been since the days of the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s.

With the $2 billion in federal funds, he said, "We will build the demonstration plants, refine the techniques and equipment, and make clean coal a reality. This single achievement will open vast amounts of our oldest and most abundant resource. And it will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles."

It was the second straight day McCain has criticized Obama, the Illinois senator who will collect the Democratic presidential nomination this summer, a few days before McCain lays claim to the GOP nomination.

Obama has said McCain's support for additional offshore oil drilling is evidence that he would effectively give the country another term of the Bush presidency.

"I guess the senator has changed his position since voting for the 2005 Bush energy bill - a grab-bag of corporate handouts that I opposed," McCain said. "Come to think of it, that energy bill was the only time we've ever seen Senator Obama vote in favor of any tax break - and it was a tax break for the oil companies."

McCain opposed the 2005 measure and said at the time it was larded with billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

[Bone]

I think nuclear power is a good idea too.

[r5TPsooner]

I'm still on the fence on whether to vote for him or not. Hopefully he's serious about Nuclear Energy and not just trying to play politics as usual in a campaign season. The same can be said about his "new idea" on drilling on the coast lines of the US.

If he proves to me that he's serious... he'll get two votes from my household in November.

[sooner_born_1960]

Why we ever stopped building those is beyond me.

[r5TPsooner]

Why we ever stopped building those is beyond me.

Because of start up costs and tree huggers.

[Jimminy Crimson]

Because of start up costs and tree huggers.

Eff 'em! :texan:

[r5TPsooner]

Eff 'em! :texan:


I agree with you 99%.:D

[sooner_born_1960]

Eff 'em! :texan:


I agree with you 99%.:D
From the pictures I've seen, closer to 5%.

[yermom]

Why we ever stopped building those is beyond me.

Chernobyl and TMI were a big factor, i'm sure

i think getting away from gas is more of a hot issue though

personally, my electric bill hasn't quadrupled in the last decade, as far as i know

[Bone]

Mine was $17 last month.

[King Crimson]

its' certainly intriguing as a response to the current dependent situation (created by people who like the Jefferson Airplane more than Reagan slashing the DOE budget in the early 80's according to Tuba...or any serious consideration of energy policy since the 70's)....there would need to be some non-partisan agreement on some kind of oversight or regulation.

i don't really think just "privatizing" and "letting the market decide" is a viable option with nuclear. there do have to be standards and probably some form of regulation.

[mdklatt]

i think getting away from gas is more of a hot issue though


Yep. Nuclear, wind, solar...all have a role in the future, but electricity production has little to do with our dependence on oil. For heating oil, not only do you produce additional electricity, but you also have to upgrade people's homes to electric heat. So is McCain also going to throw some money at the homeowners in the Northeast to buy some heat pumps, or are government handouts only for corporations?

[tommieharris91]

I've always understood that heating oil = diesel fuel. :confused:

[mdklatt]

I've always understood that heating oil = diesel fuel. :confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_oil


Heating oil, or oil heat, also known in the United States as No. 2 heating oil, is a low viscosity, flammable liquid petroleum product used to fuel building furnaces or boilers. In the U.S. it must conform to ASTM standard D396. Diesel and kerosene, while often confused as being similar or identical, must conform to their own respective ASTM standards.

[KC//CRIMSON]

Why we ever stopped building those is beyond me.

Oklahoma turned one down in the early seventies.

[mdklatt]

Oklahoma turned one down in the early seventies.

Damn filthy libz. :mad:

[Mjcpr]

Oklahoma turned one down in the early seventies.

Thanks a lot Cher!! :mad:

[mdklatt]

Thanks a lot Cher!! :mad:

But she shows her bewbs!! Or was that Meryl Streep?

[Mjcpr]

Cher, hopefully.

[r5TPsooner]

Cher, hopefully.

I hope her boobies look better than her face.

[Mjcpr]

I don't think they look anything alike.

[Mixer!]

So the nuclear energy lobby has ponied up dough for his campaign, got it.






:D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

"I guess the senator has changed his position since voting for the 2005 Bush energy bill - a grab-bag of corporate handouts that I opposed," McCain said. "Come to think of it, that energy bill was the only time we've ever seen Senator Obama vote in favor of any tax break - and it was a tax break for the oil companies."

McCain opposed the 2005 measure and said at the time it was larded with billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

Owned.

[mdklatt]

Owned.

McCain doesn't seem to have a problem with tax breaks for oil companies now. Shocking.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

McCain doesn't seem to have a problem with tax breaks for oil companies now. Shocking.

Back it up.

[mdklatt]

Back it up.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2008/db20080415_958396.htm

[Harry Beanbag]

Obama has said McCain's support for additional offshore oil drilling is evidence that he would effectively give the country another term of the Bush presidency.


This statement simply defies logic.



He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.


This is interesting since Carter was a nuclear trained submarine officer in the '50s. He knows all about nuclear energy.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Anyone else think it's funny that they are talking about nuclear power plants in springfield?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Note it said "corporate tax". That's not coddling oil companies, that's cutting corporations a break across the board.

And the gas tax holiday?

That's the taxes WE pay on fuel.

I'm not seeing how this qualifies as this...


McCain doesn't seem to have a problem with tax breaks for oil companies now.

Or how it compares to the Bush Energy Bill.

[Harry Beanbag]

http://getsustainable.net/blogfiles/uploaded_images/Homer-768568.jpg

[mdklatt]

And the gas tax holiday?

That's the taxes WE pay on fuel.


As every economist not on the payroll of McCain or Hillary has said, lowering the price of gasoline is only going to increase consumption until it's right back up where it was. That's more money for oil companies, less money for the highway trust fund, and no net difference in gas prices for the consumer. Essentially, it would be a transfer of tax dollars from the highway trust fund to oil companies. I guess it's not a tax cut after all--it's a government handout.

[Harry Beanbag]

As every economist not on the payroll of McCain or Hillary has said, lowering the price of gasoline is only going to increase consumption until it's right back up where it was. That's more money for oil companies, less money for the highway trust fund, and no net difference in gas prices for the consumer. Essentially, it would be a transfer of tax dollars from the highway trust fund to oil companies. I guess it's not a tax cut after all--it's a government handout.


I thought you were all for those?

[mdklatt]

I thought you were all for those?

When did I ever say that? I think people should have access to health care and education, but that's to everyone's benefit.

[Harry Beanbag]

When did I ever say that? I think people should have access to health care and education, but that's to everyone's benefit.


It's the impression I get when you seem to be willing to pay any amount of taxes for government programs.

[mdklatt]

It's the impression I get when you seem to be willing to pay any amount of taxes for government programs.

When did I ever say that? I think we should be held accountable for what we spend. There's no incentive to reduce government spending when the Republicans just start printing more money and dissemble about the consequences. Same thing with gas prices. There's no incentive to wean ourselves from oil dependence while the true costs are hidden from us.

[stoopified]

Because of start up costs and tree huggers.and Three Mile Island.I agree we need nuclear energy but Three Mileand Chernobyl make me not want to live within 200 miles of a nuke plant.What can I say?I'm a fraidy cat.

[Sooner_Havok]

and Three Mile Island.I agree we need nuclear energy but Three Mileand Chernobyl make me not want to live within 200 miles of a nuke plant.What can I say?I'm a fraidy cat.

Honestly, nukes should be placed a few hundred miles inland IMO. Make em harder targets. Tidal for the coasts, wind for the lower Midwest, Solar for the Southwest, Geothermal for the Northwest, and nukes for the upper Midwest.

[mdklatt]

Honestly, nukes should be placed a few hundred miles inland IMO. Make em harder targets.

Are the terrorists going to be conducting amphibious assaults?

[Sooner_Havok]

Are the terrorists going to be conducting amphibious assaults?

Terrorists, **** I forgot about them. I was thinking more along the lines of Soviet missiles. If we put them inland, then we would have more time to shoot em down.

[mdklatt]

Terrorists, **** I forgot about them. I was thinking more along the lines of Soviet missiles. If we put them inland, then we would have more time to shoot em down.

Except for Alaska, the shortest distance to Russia is via Canada....


And if the Russians are launching ICBMs at us, nuclear plants are the least of our problems.

[Sooner_Havok]

Except for Alaska, the shortest distance to Russia is via Canada....


And if the Russians are launching ICBMs at us, nuclear plants are the least of our problems.

Russians? Keep up, I am worried about the Soviets :texan:

[Scott D]

there are not any soviets, only bruce.

[bluedogok]

and Three Mile Island.I agree we need nuclear energy but Three Mileand Chernobyl make me not want to live within 200 miles of a nuke plant.What can I say?I'm a fraidy cat.
You are probably closer to an existing one than you think you are.

Arkansas Nuclear One (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/arkansas.html) is outside of Russelville off of I-40. Unit 1 has been active since 1974 and Unit 2 since 1978. There are 2 in Texas and Louisiana, 1 in Kansas and Missouri.

[mdklatt]

You are probably closer to an existing one than you think you are.

Arkansas Nuclear One (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/arkansas.html) is outside of Russelville off of I-40. Unit 1 has been active since 1974 and Unit 2 since 1978. There are 2 in Texas and Louisiana, 1 in Kansas and Missouri.

Comanche Peak is in Glen Rose, SW (i.e. upwind :eek:) of Fort Worth. The other one in Texas is between Houston and Corpus near the coast.

[Harry Beanbag]

Three Mile Island was a design and training issue. If we do ramp up nuke plants, the Navy needs to be heavily involved. The U.S. Navy has the safest reactors on the planet.

The Soviets/Russians don't know how to do anything safe.

[mdklatt]

Three Mile Island was a design and training issue.

The timing of TMI and the release of the move China Syndrome was freaky. :eek:

[bluedogok]

I know a couple of guys who work at Comanche Peak (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/comanchepk.html) (not too far from the dinosaur park) and Austin Energy is a co-owner of the South Texas Project (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/southtexas.html) which are the largest reactors in the US (1,264/1,265 MW(e) capacity).
Wolf Creek (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/wolfcreek.html) is in Burlington, Kansas (115 miles north of Bartlesville) and Callaway (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/callaway.html) is by Jefferson City.

France (http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/france.php) has the highest percentage of power by nuclear reactors in the world (78.1% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum2.html) with 57 units, 62,466 MWe).

[MR2-Sooner86]

and Three Mile Island.I agree we need nuclear energy but Three Mileand Chernobyl make me not want to live within 200 miles of a nuke plant.What can I say?I'm a fraidy cat.

I get sick and tired of this. Chernobyl was in the former Soviet Union and we know they weren't fine on "procedure".

As for Three Mile Island give me a break. Three Mile Island was like an ant ****ing in a swimming pool.

Also, Oklahoma did not turn down a nuclear plant.

PSO was going to build Black Fox outside of Tulsa and Carrie Barefoot Dickerson (dumb ****ing idiot) stopped them.

It gets better!

Since PSO had spent millions (possibly billions) on constructing some of the plant and legal cost, they passed it onto consumers!

So kids what have we learned today? If you fight to get new electricty, your electric bill goes up!

[Sooner_Havok]

there are not any soviets, only bruce.

Yeah right, you just wait. The "Russians" are just trying to lull us into a false sense of security. Soon Lenin's preserved body will come back to life, and the old hammer and sickle flags will drop from buildings in Red Square.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Yeah right, you just wait. The "Russians" are just trying to lull us into a false sense of security. Soon Lenin's preserved body will come back to life, and the old hammer and sickle flags will drop from buildings in Red Square.

If that does happen, I hope they bring this guy out of retirement for Beijing:

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/field/7342/va1-4.gif

[KC//CRIMSON]

It gets better!

Since PSO had spent millions (possibly billions) on constructing some of the plant and legal cost, they passed it onto consumers!

So kids what have we learned today? If you fight to get new electricty, your electric bill.

To cover the increasing cost of construction, PSO sought permission from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to substantially raise electric rates. On Jan. 15, 1982, the commission rejected the utility's request, saying the project's cost was too high to be included in the utility's base rates.

[Sooner_Havok]

http://imagechan.com/images/lenin.gif