McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors
By ConnPolitics.tv Editor on Jun 18, 2008 | In News, Vote 2008, John McCain | 10 feedbacks »
Springfield, Mo. (AP) – Sen. John McCain is calling for construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledging $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality. He says the measures will reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
In a second straight day of campaigning devoted to energy, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said Wednesday that the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a “break for the oil companies.”
During an appearance in Springfield, Mo., McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently in operation produce about 20 percent of the nation’s annual electricity needs. He said they spare the atmosphere the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America.
10 comments
Comment from: Independent Observer [Visitor] 
McCain's math is too conservative. We need at least 100 average size reactors to handle our needs over the next 10 years to make a reasonable offset in oil and CO2 emissions.
06/18/08 @ 17:56
Comment from: CTRedSoxfan [Visitor]
Well IO do you really think the Dems would allow it anyway? No they want to keep us squirming -they figure we need to be punished and this will be the only way we can learn the lesson they feel we need to learn
06/18/08 @ 18:14
Comment from: Ken S [Visitor]
How about old Johnny Boy keeping all the spent fuel in his back yard in AZ from the new Nukes he wants to build. I have plenty of Nuke waste in my back yard here in Niantic, CT from Millstone.
These plants are old now and past the original decommissioning date we were sold on in the beginning. No different than an old car they break down and become unreliable. I know… I have worked there! Should one fail everyone’s property within 20 miles would be worthless. Would you buy my house a mile from the plant after a Three Mile Island type incident? I don’t think so.
We need something to help with the greenhouse problem I agree. Making more waste we cannot get rid of for 150,000 years seems like a long-term problem we do not need.
These plants are old now and past the original decommissioning date we were sold on in the beginning. No different than an old car they break down and become unreliable. I know… I have worked there! Should one fail everyone’s property within 20 miles would be worthless. Would you buy my house a mile from the plant after a Three Mile Island type incident? I don’t think so.
We need something to help with the greenhouse problem I agree. Making more waste we cannot get rid of for 150,000 years seems like a long-term problem we do not need.
06/18/08 @ 18:57
Comment from: CTRedSoxFan [Visitor]
I don't want this, I don't want that, What do you boneheads want?
Start with the offshore drilling and ANWAR and guess what the prices drop. In the meantime instead of whining come up with a viable alternate. But had bill clinton started drilling 10 years ago -we wouldn't be at over $4.00 a gallon now.
Start with the offshore drilling and ANWAR and guess what the prices drop. In the meantime instead of whining come up with a viable alternate. But had bill clinton started drilling 10 years ago -we wouldn't be at over $4.00 a gallon now.
06/19/08 @ 07:02
Comment from: Able [Visitor]
What do I want? I want clean, renewable energy, which already exists to be heavily funded and put into use. Not drilling in protected parcels of land, or ten year plans to drops gasoline prices .02-.05 cents.
There are more than enough viable alternatives, just not enough funding because people still believe gasoline is the 'way to the future.'
Whether or not it started 10 years ago, wouldn't matter. Gasoline would be cheaper, but it wouldn't be an alternative, and the right way to go for energy. Oil is finite. The sun is infinite.
There are more than enough viable alternatives, just not enough funding because people still believe gasoline is the 'way to the future.'
Whether or not it started 10 years ago, wouldn't matter. Gasoline would be cheaper, but it wouldn't be an alternative, and the right way to go for energy. Oil is finite. The sun is infinite.
06/19/08 @ 13:15
Comment from: Bones [Visitor]
I'm all for nuclear power but where can you put it. Even a windmill gets protesters and legal action.
06/19/08 @ 21:07
Comment from: CTRedSoxFan [Visitor]
That's the problem-the liberal environmental wackos...all they want to do is protest.
I just heard from a business they had to turn off their security lights in their yard because some wacko was threatening a lawsuit stating a public health hazard and endangerment caused by the lights being on! Can you believe that? What about the rights of the people who are paying to have their boats safely stored in the yard? Don't they have a right to protection?
These wackos are handcuffing us and taking over the country and it needs to be stopped NOW!
I just heard from a business they had to turn off their security lights in their yard because some wacko was threatening a lawsuit stating a public health hazard and endangerment caused by the lights being on! Can you believe that? What about the rights of the people who are paying to have their boats safely stored in the yard? Don't they have a right to protection?
These wackos are handcuffing us and taking over the country and it needs to be stopped NOW!
06/20/08 @ 07:35
Comment from: kmria [Visitor]
Ok, CTRedSox, we'll put your community first on the list for the next new nuke plant.
McCain is clueless. It is certainly true that nuclear plant technology has advanced significantly in the past several decades, but absolutely no one wants a new plant anywhere near their community.
And for obvious reasons, it doesn't do any good to put one out in the desert somewhere where power transmission costs will be massive.
Are the Red States/communities volunteering for a new nuke? Because I haven't heard about it? Let's put one in Greenwich. That would go over big.
Finally, of course and obviously, even if you could find an area where people were convinced that a nuke plant was entirely safe, the residents would still shriek hysterically due to the hit in their property values associated with the proximity of a nuke plant withing even a 50 mile radius.
McCain is clueless. It is certainly true that nuclear plant technology has advanced significantly in the past several decades, but absolutely no one wants a new plant anywhere near their community.
And for obvious reasons, it doesn't do any good to put one out in the desert somewhere where power transmission costs will be massive.
Are the Red States/communities volunteering for a new nuke? Because I haven't heard about it? Let's put one in Greenwich. That would go over big.
Finally, of course and obviously, even if you could find an area where people were convinced that a nuke plant was entirely safe, the residents would still shriek hysterically due to the hit in their property values associated with the proximity of a nuke plant withing even a 50 mile radius.
06/20/08 @ 11:41
Comment from: Able [Visitor]
I believe someone just got owned...
Environmentalists, are there wackos? Yes. Are there wacko conservatives? Yes. Do either account for the majority? No.
Environmentalists, are there wackos? Yes. Are there wacko conservatives? Yes. Do either account for the majority? No.
06/20/08 @ 13:27
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
| « Dodd and CT residents speak out | Michelle Obama grateful for first lady's defense » |
