PDA

View Full Version : McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors



LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 05:27 PM
Jun 18 04:19 PM US/Eastern / By DAVID ESPO / AP Special Correspondent


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 second 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1

Aklover
06-18-2008, 05:53 PM
As long as they are isolated and away from large-medium population centers I have no problem with it.

namvet
06-18-2008, 05:57 PM
always wondered why they didn't build em underground. but im no nuke scientists

gator
06-18-2008, 06:02 PM
It needs to be 450 at least.

Goldwater
06-18-2008, 07:49 PM
It needs to be 450 at least.

Complete energy independence is absurd. Free trade deals with most of it, maybe there would be more already if it wasn't harder.

megimoo
06-18-2008, 07:57 PM
always wondered why they didn't build em underground. but im no nuke scientists

Why build them underground ,they are designed with a multi layer containment vessel in a building that can withstand an aircraft impact .After all of the tree Humpers predictions of disaster and the plain horse crap movie 'The China Syndrome' we have never had the Nuclear catastrophe as they predicted.

The failure at Three Mile Island resulted in a melted cooling system but all in the vessel that was designed to contain it and the remaining reactors there are all producing power.The Nuclear design engineering is sound and proven so !

Further we ,America,'has been using Nuclear reactors in our Navel surface and sub surface vessels for many years and have never had an accident .Our Nuclear designs are far safer than the Russian or French as proven by their Navel failure and in one case nuclear disasters.

France has about fifty six commercial nuclear power plants in operation.

SarasotaRepub
06-18-2008, 09:06 PM
It needs to be 450 at least.

Why not? Build em. :D

namvet
06-18-2008, 09:09 PM
Why build them underground ,they are designed with a multi layer containment vessel in a building that can withstand an aircraft impact .After all of the tree Humpers predictions of disaster and the plain horse crap movie 'The China Syndrome' we have never had the Nuclear catastrophe as they predicted.

The failure at Three Mile Island resulted in a melted cooling system but all in the vessel that was designed to contain it and the remaining reactors there are all producing power.The Nuclear design engineering is sound and proven so !

Further we ,America,'has been using Nuclear reactors in our Navel surface and sub surface vessels for many years and have never had an accident .Our Nuclear designs are far safer than the Russian or French as proven by their Navel failure and in one case nuclear disasters.

France has about fifty six commercial nuclear power plants in operation.

yeah i know all that. but the military has much more strict standards. and these reactors are run by civilians. hence 3 mile island. but my real concern here is terrorism. and that would be a high priority target.

lacarnut
06-18-2008, 09:52 PM
France has about fifty six commercial nuclear power plants in operation.

Those plants produce 80% of France's electric power. We could double our output of energy in 20 to 30 years if we would build nuke plants, drill off the east and west coast, all of the Gulf of M. and AK, increase coal and natural gas production, open up federal lands for exploration and proceed with alternative fuel production.

megimoo
06-18-2008, 10:13 PM
Those plants produce 80% of France's electric power. We could double our output of energy in 20 to 30 years if we would build nuke plants, drill off the east and west coast, all of the Gulf of M. and AK, increase coal and natural gas production, open up federal lands for exploration and proceed with alternative fuel production. Sounds like a plan,lets do it and screw those liberal tree huggers !

megimoo
06-18-2008, 10:38 PM
yeah i know all that. but the military has much more strict standards. and these reactors are run by civilians. hence 3 mile island. but my real concern here is terrorism. and that would be a high priority target.They had an possible attack alert at a nuke plant and set up a patriot battery next door.Those patriot battery are big on small slow flying aircraft !

namvet
06-19-2008, 09:26 AM
They had an possible attack alert at a nuke plant and set up a patriot battery next door.Those patriot battery are big on small slow flying aircraft !

yes they did. i think they caught some muslims taking photos of the site. or maybe they escaped. i don't remember. but i thought man if they blow one we're screwed !!!!

LogansPapa
06-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Again, McBush could mandate it via emergency order - January 21st, 2009. State and Federal property could be used for many, smaller plants and dot the map with the suckers. We've already invested in the hole to put the waste in - let the White House use its clout to squash the court tie-ups regarding the possiblity of ground water contamination that might occur in 3000 AD.:rolleyes:

What's the worst that could happen? Hundreds of thousands of Westinghouse and General Electric employees have a job for the next hundred years? I think we're tough enough to take that.:cool: