| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Good idea or Bad idea? |
| Good Idea |
|
75% |
[ 18 ] |
| Bad Idea |
|
25% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 24 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - 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. |
Hmm...$2 billion a year to build something very controversial. Huh.
Well, who is supportive of this, and who isn't? Let's do a poll.
It also seems to be energy for basic electricity, which seems like there are a number of alternatives to already. But McCain is spinning it to something that will make our need/desire for oil to somehow reverse itself. Can autos, trucks, ships, planes, and all the massive oil-consuming military equipment run on energy from nuclear reactors?
Also, aren't nuclear reactors potential terrorist targets of the worst kind, not to mention an eternal problem that must be maintained and worried about for all eternity and forever more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am absolutely supportive of his measure to construct nuclear reactors.
It will not solve issues concerning vehicle emissions, but it will create clean energy for everything that runs off the grid. Secondly, the private nuclear industry is so hamstrung by onerous regulations that the construction of nuclear power plants require government subsidy at the very least.
The $2 billion/year for clean coal is about what the Obama campaign wants (and what Clinton was proposing as well). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not 100% against it, but I think it would be a wiser policy to invest massive amounts into alternative energy sources and capture the leadership role in future sources of energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - 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. |
Hmm...$2 billion a year to build something very controversial. Huh.
Well, who is supportive of this, and who isn't? Let's do a poll.
It also seems to be energy for basic electricity, which seems like there are a number of alternatives to already. But McCain is spinning it to something that will make our need/desire for oil to somehow reverse itself. Can autos, trucks, ships, planes, and all the massive oil-consuming military equipment run on energy from nuclear reactors?
Also, aren't nuclear reactors potential terrorist targets of the worst kind, not to mention an eternal problem that must be maintained and worried about for all eternity and forever more? |
Nuclear power can be used to get Hydrogen from water. or get oil from coal or oil from heavy oil or shale.
There is also the possibility of electric cars or plug in cars.
The choice is to keep giving money to the middle east.
If you are serious about not sending money to the middle east then nuclear power is an important first step.
Also nuclear fuel has a number of uses.
There are also much better and safer designs for nuclear power than there were 30 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm not 100% against it, but I think it would be a wiser policy to invest massive amounts into alternative energy sources and capture the leadership role in future sources of energy. |
nuclear power is one way to go of course there are other source of energy and the US needs to invest in them too. but if you want fuel cell cars then you are going to need a way to get the hydrogen from water. The other way is to get it from hydrocarbons but that isn't as useful. Solor power and wind power can and must help but there is almost no chance that they are going to be enough.
Nuclear power means the US can have lots of hydrogen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We should be putting a bunch into researching other energy sources as well, but in the mean time we have solid nuclear plant tech that we should be using a lot more. It's a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good. It's about time both pundits/candidates on the right and left are getting behind nuclear.
Now we just need someone to step up and spearhead a serious effort to extend our commuter rail infrastructure across the country. Those two things alone would have a big impact on emissions in this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Good. It's about time both pundits/candidates on the right and left are getting behind nuclear.
Now we just need someone to step up and spearhead a serious effort to extend our commuter rail infrastructure across the country. Those two things alone would have a big impact on emissions in this country. |
I don't see Obama talking about nuclear power.
But an investment in commuter rail infrastructure is another thing that needs to be done |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does this mean Iran gets to build theirs w/o a war with USrael?
After all, the US, with the Alaska oil and the Bakken Formation, and other oil and coal reserves, doesn't need nuclear energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I don't see Obama talking about nuclear power. |
He is, too. Not as strongly as McCain, but Obama isn't officially against it.
He always stresses the idea of looking at ALL alternative fuel sources, and has yet to come out against nuclear power, and it seems doubtful he will come out against it.
There is some discussion that he is a proponent of nuclear power, as one of his biggest campaign donators is Exelon, one of the largest employers in the State of Illinois, which just happens to be in the Nuclear Power business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
Does this mean Iran gets to build theirs w/o a war with USrael?
After all, the US, with the Alaska oil and the Bakken Formation, and other oil and coal reserves, doesn't need nuclear energy. |
The answer for Iran and nuclear power is it depends.
At any rate Iran has much much more oil than the US and it is much easier to get at . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
Good. It's about time both pundits/candidates on the right and left are getting behind nuclear.
Now we just need someone to step up and spearhead a serious effort to extend our commuter rail infrastructure across the country. Those two things alone would have a big impact on emissions in this country. |
I don't see Obama talking about nuclear power.
But an investment in commuter rail infrastructure is another thing that needs to be done |
I read an article a couple months ago when Obama's advisors/potential cabinet was coming together. I looked for it but couldn't find it again. Essentially one of Obama's energy advisors is very pro-nuke, and wants the infrastructure to go up as soon as possible. The basic argument being, we have an energy piggy bank with our natural resources and we shouldn't touch it until we're completely broke, ie: out of oil and natural gas. Sounds good to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the US ought to do everything it can . It ought to use its natural resources now too. In the future technology will progress and the US will be able to come up with more solutions but for now the US has got to play all its cards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm not 100% against it, but I think it would be a wiser policy to invest massive amounts into alternative energy sources and capture the leadership role in future sources of energy. |
It looks like you'll have to change your opinion because I believe the money is better invested in alternative energy.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't wait till they come out w/ nuclear cars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
