Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Good idea or Bad idea?
Good Idea
75%
 75%  [ 18 ]
Bad Idea
25%
 25%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author Message
Tiger Beer



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:52 pm    Post subject: McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:52 pm    Post subject: Re: McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
JustJohn



Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Czarjorge



Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Zenas



Joined: 17 May 2008
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Send private message
Tiger Beer



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.