John McCain: The Nuclear Option

From the link:

YOUNG: After almost 30 years of near zero growth in the U.S., nuclear industry leaders say they are poised for a nuclear renaissance. And Senator John McCain is a nuclear renaissance man.

MCCAIN: I'd like to say, I'm very grateful to be here at the Fermi Nuclear Plant. I want to thank the great workers and people here who have made nuclear power safe, efficient, inexpensive and obviously...

YOUNG: In August McCain toured the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating site in Michigan—a venue that struck some as an odd place to highlight nuclear safety. Nuclear opponent Jim Riccio of Greenpeace:

RICCIO: It's one of the few sites in the U.S. where you've actually already had a meltdown. It was an experimental breeder reactor, and that reactor experienced a partial core melt back in '66. So it was ironic that of all the places in the U.S. that the senator could go he chose the site of a meltdown.

YOUNG: If Senator McCain was unaware of Fermi's spotty safety history, he wasn't alone. Leaders of the industry's powerful trade group in Washington, the Nuclear Energy Institute, didn't know either.

FLINT: No, the Fermi plant operates very safely.

YOUNG: That's Alex Flint, the Nuclear Institute's senior vice president for
government affairs.

FLINT: The entire nuclear renaissance is based on the fact that the 104 plants operating today have an extraordinary safety and environmental record. And it is that, it's the safety and environmental record of the existing plants that makes it possible for us to contemplate this renaissance in nuclear power.
YOUNG: But what happened at Fermi in 1966?

FLINT: Uh that was three years before I was born, I'll have to go off and ask somebody.

YOUNG: I think they had meltdown.

FLINT: No. no.

YOUNG: Flint called a colleague who confirmed Fermi's meltdown history.

FLINT: (on phone) Okay, that's what I needed. Thanks. (Hangs up) Well, you asked me a question I never heard before.

YOUNG: It was an awkward moment. And it reflects a larger awkward phase for the nuclear industry. The presidential campaign puts it in the limelight as a potential energy source for the future. But that also brings into focus nagging problems from the past—questions about safety, waste, and tremendous cost. McCain believes those challenges pale compared to the threat of global warming.

MCCAIN: And, you can't be serious, you can't be serious about reducing the effect of greenhouse gas emissions unless you factor in nuclear power into the equation.

YOUNG: That was McCain in an interview with Living on Earth in 2004. The following year he added incentives for nuclear power to his Climate Stewardship Act, which aimed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That alienated some environmental allies and cost crucial votes in the Senate, where the Act failed.

Now McCain proposes 45 new reactors by the year 2030—and a longer-term goal of 100 reactors. Again, environmentalists like Jim Riccio, who applauded McCain for tackling global warming, are aghast at his insistence on nuclear power.

RICCIO: If you actually want to address climate change you need to do things that are fast and affordable. Last year we put 5,000 megawatts of wind on the grid here in the United States. You're not going to put that kind of nuclear power on the grid for well over a decade and by then climate change will be upon us, and potentially unabateable.

cont.

YOUNG: The Nuclear Institute says 45 reactors would keep nuclear at 20 percent of the country's electricity mix as demand rises. But some who watch energy investments aren't so sure the money to build them would be there. Kevin Book is an energy analyst with FBR, an investment bank in Arlington, Virginia.

BOOK: It will be a stretch, to be quite frank. The problem will be getting them built, and getting them built with the labor force we have, and at prices that local regulated utilities will want to pay. You're still going to need a lot of money and you're going to need a lot of time. It's 2008, last time I checked. That gives 22 years to build 45 of something we haven't built in 30 years. From my perspective that sounds like a challenge.

YOUNG: Book says pinning down the cost is tricky—estimates for a new reactor vary from four to nearly 11 billion dollars. At, say, seven billion each, McCain's proposal means 315 billion dollars someone has to come up with. And that someone could be you, as a ratepayer or taxpayer. The industry would get billions in production tax credits. And taxpayers could be on the hook for much greater sums if companies default on government-guaranteed loans. And then there is the question of what to do with the waste. McCain wants to finish the Yucca Mountain repository for permanent underground storage. But that project faces opposition in congress and the courts. McCain also wants the U.S. to reprocess the spent fuel.

MCCAIN: The Japanese, the British, the French do it, and we can do it too.

YOUNG: Reprocessing—sometimes called recycling—separates useful material from spent fuel. But it's controversial among nuclear experts. MIT professor and former Clinton administration energy department official Ernie Moniz says it's a bad idea.

MONIZ: There is a misconception that the program in France, for example, that relies upon plutonium recycling, has somehow solved the waste management problem. It has not. It costs more, it creates stores of plutonium. So there are some issues there that need to be clarified.

YOUNG: So both of McCain's plans for dealing with waste would run into opposition. Financing construction of new reactors would be very tough. And safety concerns from environmentalists would complicate McCain's effort to link nuclear power incentives to climate change legislation. But for all the criticism McCain catches, he has at least been consistent. Which has not been the case with his opponent.

OBAMA: I am not a nuclear energy proponent.

YOUNG: This was Senator Obama last year. Here's Obama this month.

OBAMA: I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.

YOUNG: Just where does the Democratic presidential candidate stand? We'll take a look at his nuclear record next week.

Nuclear is too dangerious.

Coal is too dirty.

Gas burns too much carbon.

Wind, and Solar is not ready for prime time energy production to support our present population.

I guess we're all supposed to die, so Polar Bears can live.

Wind and solar are ready now and already in use. Either STOP LYING or prove your assertion. The only things stopping them from getting to market on a wider scale to those who need them are red tape, greedy obstructionist politicians, and a complicit media that helps keeps the masses in the dark... and ignorant people who perpetuate it all with their political partisanship.

Once again John Mccain has shown his true intention.
He backs monopolies such as big oil. He now wants to back another centalized/monopolistic form of energy- nuclear. The 26 year senator in Arizona- land of the sun, never once advocated for solar- a sustainable non monopolitsic form of energy.

In Arizona no less- the number one state for sunshine.
In Arizona- near last for health care and near last for public education. Mccain never met a a war he didnt vote for!

The man is a throw back with huge emotional scares from the Vietnam War that push his pro-war agenda policies! He is unstable irrational and goes against the grain- hence the Maverick label!
He is the last person the nation needs to lead us from eight years of turmoil that Mccain himself has blessed!

Back to nuclear- where do you think all the nuclear waste will end up? It will dangerously be shipped upon vulnerable trains to the deserts of the soutwest!
No way! No Mccain!

Seriously McCain has been pissing me off too when he talks about nuclear energy, and how efficient and clean it is. um no it is not clean at all. What about all the byproduct that has to be stored in remote locations of our country underground or underwater. It takes anywhere from 10,000 - 1,000,000 years for the waste to become safe enough for the environment.

McCain has gotten over a million dollars from the oil and gas lobbies if I am not mistaken. Obama hasn't done too bad either, although to be fair not as much as McCain. Although, Obama has also gotten more from investment houses than McCain, Go figure that one. Anyway, either way on energy policy we are screwed if they both continue on this path of nuclear and clean coal and drilling... unless we become more involved in the process and in educating others about the viability of solar and other alternate sources that are ready now.

Nothing you are saying is true. Nuclear is safe, and the only energy source that can create the power we need. Wind, solar, geothermal... those are all good ideas, but not sustainable at the current moment. Perhaps in the future.

YOU need to stop misinforming people to push your own hippie agenda

Nuclear power should never be used. If people decide to use it regardless of the consequences we have to at least find a way to dispose of the waste in an environmentally friendly way. I don't mean storing it in Yucca Mountain either (I think that's even been halted). Anyway there are far better ways of generating energy like solar and wind. Also JanforGore hit on the fact that creating more nuclear plants creates more "terrorist" targets. If these nuclear plants get hit by"terrorists" or they have a meltdown they aren't something you want in your backyard. Remember 3 mile island? I'm sure that isn't something people are exactly eager to repeat.

Same old garbage if you don't agree with janforgore you are ignorant

'Book says pinning down the cost is tricky—estimates for a new reactor vary from four to nearly 11 billion dollars. At, say, seven billion each, McCain's proposal means 315 billion dollars someone has to come up with. And that someone could be you, as a ratepayer or taxpayer. The industry would get billions in production tax credits. And taxpayers could be on the hook for much greater sums if companies default on government-guaranteed loans.'
Where do you put that kind of radioactive waste, and where do you get that kind of money?

Why do rich people have to be so evil?

Here's something we all can do: I paid my utility bill yesterday and in the envelope I wrote on the bill: "100% "renewable" energy in 10 years. We can do it." Maybe if we all did that as well as writing just one letter to our local papers about this it might begin a groundswell.

great idea! But 10 years is a long time. How about they make it next year. That would be great. They can tear down trees and build 50 homes or more in one month. But they can't switch to Solar or wind power?

Nuclear fission does not give out as much power as it takes in. However, in nuclear fusion, about 90% the energy put into it comes out, more than fission, coal burning, gasoline, wind, hydroelectric, or geothermal. Fusion would be the most powerful energy production method ever. That's what we should research.

I propose a moratorium on nuclear power for anybody who pronounces the word, "nook-ewe-lur."

Neither of them actually care about the environment at all, very disappointing...but i have my other ways for still living green...