Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1 McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors 
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    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...show_article=1
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    193
    As long as they are isolated and away from large-medium population centers I have no problem with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member namvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Western Mo
    Posts
    2,988
    always wondered why they didn't build em underground. but im no nuke scientists
    Liberals: Obama's useful Idiots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    gator
    Guest
    It needs to be 450 at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Goldwater
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sarasota,FL
    Posts
    42,739
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    It needs to be 450 at least.
    Why not? Build em. :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member namvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Western Mo
    Posts
    2,988
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    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.
    Liberals: Obama's useful Idiots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post


    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    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 !
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •