Summer CE Week #3: “Visit puts focus on nuclear power”
McCain calls for 45 plants by 2030; Obama more wary
David Jackson
USA Today
August 6, 2008
WASHINGTON – John McCain’s visit to a Michigan nuclear plant Tuesday revives a debate over the promise and safety of nuclear energy.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee emphasized the promise, saying his plan to build 45 0nuclear plants by 2030 would help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
“If we want to enable the technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars, we need electricity to plug into,” McCain said after touring a nuclear plant about 30 miles south of Detroit.
Democrat Barack Obama is more cautious. While he says nuclear power should be part of U.S. energy plans, Obama said Tuesday the nation must find “safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.” He said the focus should be on finding new energy sources.
A summer of record gas prices and tensions with oil-rich areas such as the Middle East, Venezuela and Russia has combined to make energy a top issue in the White House race.
The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 changed the political dynamics of nuclear power. No new plants have been approved since 1979, but those in development at the time gradually came online, said Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade group.
There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. three decades ago, according to the institute, and today there are 104. Nuclear power produces 19 percent of the nation’s electricity – a point McCain frequently makes on the campaign trail. Applications are pending for 18 plants.
John Keeley, a spokesman for the institute, said it is a lengthy process to get plants licensed and built. “We’re looking at an eight-to-nine-year time frame,” Keeley said.
In making the case for nuclear power, McCain often cites France’s reliance on such energy and plans by China, India and Russia to boost their capacity.
The Democratic National Committee and the League of Conservation Voters both noted that the Enrico Fermi nuclear plant that McCain visited had replaced one that had a partial meltdown in 1966. An abnormal level of radiation was not released at the time, and no one was injured, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Obama has criticized McCain for not having a plan to dispose of nuclear waste – other than to deposit it at the proposed Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada, which the Democrat opposes. McCain, who voted for the site in 2002, has said he supports the facility about 90 miles from Las Vegas as long as it can meet federal environmental standards.
McCain’s plan for nuclear power, including eventual construction of 100 new facilities, is just one idea in a package that also calls for more oil drilling and tax breaks to developers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.
Obama’s energy plan includes a tax on companies that make “windfall profits” from soaring oil prices, drilling on stockpiled oil leases and $150 billion to step up research on biofuels and other forms of “clean” energy.
Related Topic/Question: What do the French do with their nuclear waste?
Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui?
by Jack Spencer
December 28, 2007
What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain?
What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources?
That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use.
To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled.
Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!
The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.
Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program.
Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.
Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferation, and o accidental explosions.
France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel.
Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel–enough to power France for fourteen years.
Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China.
The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing.
Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively–placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain.
All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage.
If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel.
A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons–subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater.
It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America’s nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can’t oui? (This last line was my favorite part of the article – Kautzman)
Jack Spencer is a research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
First appeared in FoxNews.com
The basis of the environmental platform of the presidential candidates should be a strong concern to most voting Americans considering that the future environmental policies are going to not only have a national affect but a worldwide span. Nuclear power being pushed by McCain I believe has good intentions, although Obama has a point in the issue of dealing with the nuclear waste. I agree with Obama’s emphasis on continuing the search for alternative energy sources as opposed to banking on one idea that could possibly turn out to be more of a problem than a solution. McCain’s plan including more oil drilling also initially is unattractive. Further oil drilling I believe should not be our solution to rising gas prices. To continue drilling for oil on shore or off shore only supports an already all-consuming, selfish attitude of our nation. Nuclear power doesn’t seem fool-proof either considering the crisis’ from the past and the long 8 to 9 year time frame to get a plant approved. Obviously hesitations toward the power source exist and when it comes to finding a solution for our increasing environmental tension, there should be no room left for doubt in the plan. Also, McCain being encouraged to support nuclear power due to the plan’s adoption in places such as China and France doesn’t make for a selling point. A solution to new energy sources should not be a game of “follow the leader” in adopting the mediocre plan. Every nation should always be making changes daily and looking for bigger, better plan without the risk factor.
Although I am a supporter of alternative energy sources, I think that nuclear energy isn’t a reasonable idea as an alternative energy source. First of all, it is unreasonable to guarantee 45 nuclear plants by 2030 because the United States doesn’t have the funds to build and safely manage this many nuclear plants. It is true that this will help reduce gases that contribute to global warming and will also help cut our dependency on foreign oil, but the dangers outweigh the benefits. The first point I would like to make is that nuclear energy may not produce greenhouse gases, but the process of obtaining uranium and transporting it contributes to greenhouse gases. These gases may not add up to much all at once, but eventually they will increase the damaging gases in the atmosphere. Additionally, nuclear reactors can cost 6 billion dollars or more, and that’s only one reactor. The United States can’t afford to add this much money to the national debt, because 6 billion dollars multiplied by 45 is $27,000,000,000! This is just ridiculous. Another concern is the health of people who work in these plants, but also the health of people who live near or close to these reactors. The people who work in these plants are exposed to excessive amounts of radiation that can lead to cancer, and other deadly results. The people who live in these areas are also exposed to radiation that can cause disastrous results. Another concern is the radioactive waste that is created from nuclear energy. The waste is buried and sealed in dump sites that are “safely” taken care of. But radiation leaks continue to happen! The waste is also dumped into the oceans and lakes that can destroy ecosystems. This would do more bad than good! Lastly, nuclear energy creates a crisis in the form of war. Middle Eastern countries continue to develop nuclear power plants, and the United States goes insane and accuses these countries of developing nuclear weapons. This would only cause more of a problem for the United States! McCain has a plan for this type of energy, but no decisive plan on how to take care of the waste and how to address the health concerns of the public. Until there is a safe way to dispose of the waste and address health concerns, we need to forget about this type of energy and create and explore other forms. This is not the holy grail of energy sources!
I like that McCain is so passionate about getting a source of power other that gas. Although I do think that he is looking at it at the wrong angle. Obama was right to criticize McCain on were the nuclear waste was going. What happens when McCain’s Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada fills up (or doesn’t meet federal environmental standards anymore). It won’t take very long if he has 45 nuclear plants all running by 2030. Obama did put himself in a loophole though by saying that he would put $150 billion to step up research on biofuels. All of the biofuels that people keep making produce waste that is not good for the environmental either.
I personally think that more natural sources of power are the way to go. Windmills and dams, for example, are much safer than nuclear power plants because they do not produce environmentally hazardous waste. I am pretty sure that windmills are much cheaper than nuclear plants too. It cost some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt to run nuclear power. Windmills are less than $1,000 per kilowatt. If McCain has wind power hidden in his power package, then I think he should put it above nuclear power for sure.
I would have to agree that sooner or later someone would have to come up with an energy plan that would go through and succeed. With such increasing gas prices, there has got to be something that this country can do in order to change that. With our dependency on foreign oil being so great (not the US alone), the Middle East, Venezuela, and Russia will eventually run out of oil. And then what? Exactly. It seems that higher gas prices in this country don’t exactly seem to change people’s everyday driving. Perhaps more people are considering public transportation, but why use a bus when you have five cars in your driveway? (Is perhaps a more frequently asked question.) Lets take Europe for example. Gas prices have reached record highs of $6.00 per gallon. More and more people use public transportation, and driving is considered to be a privilege, and perhaps a useful tool during the emergencies. However in the States, some people are not bothered with the idea, seeing so many SUV’s and vans holding only one passenger. Not only do we need a perfect energy solution, but maybe also a new life style. I think carpooling should become even more popular, and busses and trains should be seriously taken advantage of. On the other hand, people of our generation might not be even affect by the consequences of this situation, it will be our children. Thus, most people do not even think twice about filling up a tank twice a week.
I would also agree that we should rely more on nuclear power, for future technology (cars) might require that as a source. And we cannot go to Middle East to drain their energy sources any longer. Think about it, with all this land in the whole country of US..I am sure there will be a perfect spot that would fullfill everyone’s energy needs.
With the hybrid craze boosting as it is, the need for electricity is going up. Therefore the cost must go up too. With these proposed nuclear power initiatives, the chances are that the price will remain low. The only trouble is all the tax payer money it will take to build them. You might not be paying too much to plug in your car for the night but your checkbook will be feeling it hard. I guess though that it makes more sense to pay the government than rich executives but in the end they are all the same. The other issue is the nuclear waste that results from our energy squabbling. Nevada is actually pretty nice and i’d hate to see it melt away. The risk could be too much to waiver my bias on this issue. In the mean time though, this seems like the best alternative we have right now so it sounds tempting. Why can’t they find common ground and build some nuclear plants as well as fund clean energy research?
I like the idea of nuclear power; however, disposal of the waste is very important, and must, as Obama pointed out, have a good way of disposing before we begin to use it as the main source of power. We must look into the future 50+ years from now, or the consequences could be terrible. I also agree with Obama’s approach, that we should tax the oil companies, and promote research for new fuels. Here is a video of a fuel that most would find impossible to use. In 100 miles, the creator used only 4 oz of this fuel, yes, only 4 ounces… and the fuel is… WATER!
http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=576
Check it out, i know your interested.
Anyways, so becuase we had one littler problem in 1979, the government has pretty much freaked out, and is like “No more nuke plants…” so we can get around that problem with Obama’s approach, to support other fuels and heavily tax the fuel company. I felt this article definitely leaned toward Obama because it criticized McCain for wanting to build more plants (and who’s gonna wanna nuclear plant in their backyard anyways? Plus 8-9 years for it to get approved? Jeez) And then when it went to talk about Obama’s approach, it was summarized in a little 1 paragraph idea, without negative criticism.
I do not know much about McCain, but I do know quite a bit about the nuclear fundamentals. You cannot point to our history and say that nuclear power is safe, because we did not know what the symptoms were or where they would appear. The term the “down winders” came from a town that was caught in a load of fallout from nuclear testing that was blown down wind towards their town miles away. This was not immediately noticed since cancer is slow to develop and at the time was very slow to be noticed. It was not until years later when a pattern emerged in autopsy reports, there was a rising amount of people dieing from cancer. This was linked to the nuclear testing, but the government denied it until years later and eventually paid settlements to many people for the damage that the testing had caused.
What McCain’s plan calls for is an increased amount of nuclear plants to meet our energy needs. The problem with that is to decrease the health risks plants must be placed far from population centers or in low density population areas. The areas were we need the energy are neither of these, there is simply not enough room in America for these plants.
Now, I saw earlier this week a post about a breakthrough in solar energy. Obama’s plan calls for an increased amount of research and development for biofuels and other alternative forms for energy. To me it seems simple, Obama’s plan is better.
I think that John McCain is right in his reasoning that we need to stop U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. If that means making more nuclear energy plants then that is what we should do. People complain that they are dangerous and unpredictable, but I think that we have the technology to keep it under control. And our technology will only get better as the years go on. Although the safety of the power plants doesn’t seem to be the number one concern in this debate, it is where to dump the wastes products. McCain supports a facility about 90 miles from Las Vegas as long as it can meet federal environmental standards. McCain is really a genius for this plan. Obama assumes that something will go wrong with the dump site and Las Vegas will be in grave peril for it. I say Las Vegas should be the one to take the heat. Aside from the huge profits made from this city, I would say that this city is one of the more crime infested ones. Las Vegas has the highest auto theft rate per capita in the entire U.S.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Just as much as I support funding of the solar power proposition, I would like to learn much more about this nuclear power idea. However, my hesitation stems from the inferred suggestion to include more nuclear reactors in the process. When the first large-scale nuclear reactors were introduced, their main purpose was the production of nuclear weapons material. Scary thought, eh? In 1996 about 22 percent of the electric power generated in the United States came from nuclear power plants. In contrast, in France almost three-quarters of the electricity generated came from nuclear power plants (Microsoft Student 2007)!
As an aspiring medical student, my other concern with McCain’s plan is his apparent lack of interest in co-funding nuclear waste sights. Radioactive materials emit penetrating, ionizing radiation that can injure living tissues. If the situation were to spiral out of control, it would likely only heighten the global warming scare and, possibly, the general cancer threat. Does anyone remember, or has anyone heard of, the Chernobyl’ incident of 1986? Later studies indicated that the accident was caused by unauthorized testing of the reactor by its operators. Radiation about 50 times higher than that at Three Mile Island exposed people nearest the reactor (MS 2007). The documentary I watched a few months ago showed the emotional side of the story. Countless scores of residents were unable to return to their homes for fear of radiation poisoning. Families were torn apart as children of all ages were diagnosed with multiple diseases due to breathing complications, uncontrollable cell division in critical areas (cancer), skin irritations, and physical deformities. Imagine such distress in your very own neighborhood…
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
While McCain plans for future technology, he focuses on reducing American dependence of foreign oil and reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses produced to lessen the effects of Global Warming. When Obama considers future technology, he wants to focus on new technologies because of the hazards associated with nuclear plants. Sources of energies have become a daunting concern in recent months. I find it interesting that McCain wants to create forty-five nuclear plants given that not a single new nuclear plant has been approved in nearly three decades. I am more inclined to agree with Obama’s plan for finding new resources. If nuclear energy only accounts for 19% of our total energy, then it probably shouldn’t attempt to replace other forms. I find it startling that McCain approves of placing a nuclear plant within 90 miles of Las Vegas given that nuclear plants are slightly prone to producing toxic waste. Locating that kind of capacity for danger so close to a heavily visited city does not seem like a very good idea even if it does meet federal environmental standards. I think that imploring the use of additional nuclear plants creates unnecessary hazards. I am relieved that McCain’s plan mentions alternative energy, but I would prefer that those energy sources received more than tax breaks.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
First off, McCain wanting to resort to nuclear power seems a little on the immature thinking side. He obviously hasn’t thought about the entire plan, as in consequences and sacrifices that will have to be made, as a whole. He goes to a nuclear plant and immediately wants to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030, this doesn’t seem fair to the people. Another thing, it looks as if he is trying to play “follow the leader” by using China, and other foreign countries as an example for his “plans”. Obama on the other hand agrees with the nuclear power plan but, unlike McCain, has thought about the aftermath. Storing and disposing of nuclear waste is not a simple solution. You can’t dispose of it just anywhere, you need to think about the area in which it will go. Nevada, for instance, is a beautiful place with Mt. Charleston, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Preserve, Lake Tahoe, and many other places that deal with nature. Disposing of nuclear waste in a region as beautiful as such would ruin it. A well planned out plan seems necessary for anything involving the nature of nature. Obama had a good idea- an alternative. Though nuclear seems as if it’s the best idea so far, there are other alternatives. We have a huge power source that we rotate around every single day for at least 15 to 20 hours a day, and there is enough to empower the entire earth. Solar energy, at this point in time, attracts me the most. Everything is natural and we don’t have to worry about radioactive waste that we would have to dispose of sufficiently. As for fuel, there is a new development of a H20 Regulator that uses water as the fuel. These two alternatives sound good to me. Why not use the resources we have? We have enough sun, and we have enough water, I mean, the earth is covered in about 75% of it right? And yet we are still finding more sources of it. Both Obama and McCain have their heads in the right places it seems, but obviously their thinking needs to get a little more accurate and get thought out more thoroughly. But, as that problem is getting solved, I will just sit back and see what else they each come up with to get my attention.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
It seems everyone is against nuclear power. The waste is a big issue, one that needs to be dealt with soon, but there simply isn’t a replacement for it. Nuclear power is probably our future, whether you like it or not. What do we do in places where there’s little to no wind? Not use oil! Well, at least that’s what everyone says not to do. So nuclear power is basically the only way to go. Sure, they’re researching new ways to use alternative energy sources. But that research is not as easy as you think. Helium and hydrogen, as far as they can use today, is much too unstable. Solar power is a possibility, especially with the breakthroughs regarding the MIT scientists’ discoveries, but that plan is long in our distance. On top of that, there may not be a way to fully rely ourselves on solar power… what if it’s cloudy for a month?
My point is we can rely on one energy source too much, as we are with oil, but nuclear power will be a main contributor for a long time to come. We’ll just have to wait and see what the public likes better regarding the two candidates’ opinions.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
In response to Michael Townshend… How can you possibly relate the government to rich executives (M.T.)? The decisions of the government are based on general human interest, need-based aid, and the overall status of the country in relation to economy, population growth and decline, and foreign interest. Rich executives are concerned with one primary audience: themselves! Another point brought up in your post: the inability of researchers to find common ground. I agree with Erik’s thought that plants must be “placed far from population centers or in low density population areas” (E.L.). Ever since the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl incident, lawmakers are simply not interested in funding such a dangerous process. Until plans for safe, efficient, and beneficial nuclear plants (and waste sites) have been approved, it is unwise to rush into such agreements without proper research and assurance of the desired outcome.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
In response to James’ post, I do agree with your position. The United States has got to stop our dependence on foreign oil. Not only that but also decrease the greenhouse gases that would raise the temperature of our planet to that or even higher than that of Venus’s 467°C, we don’t want that, now do we? Thus, I would think that the best solution proposed by the candidates, build more nuclear energy plans. Obama was right with his concern about the waste, but I am sure that the US being so technologically advanced, must find a way to deal with that issue. However, if nothing is changed nor improved, our planet will suffer, and with that will its population.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
I honestly don’t know much about nuclear power in regards to how it actually works. It doesn’t sound all that bad though. The fact that nuclear energy has worked for other countries is comforting. No doubt the Three Mile Island accident is scary, but hopefully safety measures have improved greatly since then. Nonetheless, concerns about where nuclear waste will be kept are valid. As far as alternative energies go I think solar power is amazing. It would make all the people concerned about the environment happy because it is totally safe. If for some reason solar panels stopped working because of a month absent of sun, there are ways around that. Why isn’t it possible to develop cars that can run off of solar panels or off gas depending on your mood? Finally, as favor as drilling goes, I think continuing to drill for oil is good, whether it be off shore or not because as of right now it is the only sure way to use energy that we have. Besides, knew safety measures for drilling are supposedly being discovered. If the world ends because of global warming, at least I will have enjoyed my life by being able to drive my car.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
In my opinion, if we are really trying to find an environmentally safe energy, than why not try and go all the way? I mean, why make it mostly safe and not make it 100% safe. As we know oil is not the way to go but I believe that neither is nuclear power. I believe that the way to go is solar power or wind power. And while scientists are discovering ways to use these energies and store them safely, I think we should drill oil. And we might as well drill the oil here within the United States. We have the oil and I am pretty sure it will not run out anytime soon. We do not need to buy the fuel from other countries when we have it here ourselves. That just seems almost stupid. In the mean time, if we keep drilling oil, that should be a enough time to find a safe energy source that makes everyone happy: the environment and the people. I guess what I am saying is that if we already have come up with a safe solution such as solar power, where can store a years worth from one hour of sun(a months cloud isn’t going to matter) and have no waste than what is the deal with nuclear power. Just a thought.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Nuclear power itself is reliable, it’s the source that’s more than a bit dangerous. Or at least, that’s what most would contend. However, as a point of interest, when was the last time any of the plants in operation underwent a meltdown? Provided that the staff at the plant do their jobs, nuclear plants are safe. While we can’t plan for everything, numerous mandated fail-safes would go a long way for handling the problems. The example of France’s healthy reliance on nuclear power may not convince some, but it is a worthwhile one. They haven’t had any problematic meltdowns so far, and have relied on nuclear power for some time. Obama’s critique of McCain’s plan to dispose of the waste is interesting. The by-products of nuclear power are quite ugly, but a group based in the UK has estimated that US oil production in the last 20 years has created 8 million tons of radioactive waste. Despite what some would say, nuclear power isn’t the only producer of nuclear waste, it’s just one of the producers that seems the most connected in public opinion. (Nuclear power makes nuclear waste? Makes sense.) However, that waste does have to go somewhere, even if nuclear power isn’t the only producer. So the question of where to put it is rather rough, as the thought of putting it near people is out, and there will be outrage if any innocent (cute looking) flora and fauna perish as a result of nearby waste. I’d like to hope that we could somehow find a use for the waste, we could hopefully do something with it, rather than just dumping it. Waste not, want not as the adage goes.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
This article never really mentioned anything about the good that can come from nuclear energy, or that there are lots of countries around the world that safely use nuclear energy. I think that France uses Nuclear energy plants as their main power source. I could be wrong about that, but thats what i remember.
I know that this article was sort of designed to shoot down McCain’s energy plans, but I think that it should have talked alittle bit more about McCain’s plans for alternative energy and more oil drilling. I also got the vibe that this article was supporting Obama’s energy plan. I think that it should have given more specifics about Obama’s plans too. That way if Obama’s plan actually is better, we could clearly tell.
I also disagree with this article when it talks about McCain’s plans to store the nuclear waste. It seems like we already forgot that last year scientist discovered that you can use calcium floride to store nuclear waste. If i remember right, we can now store nuclear waste in containers that don’t deteriorate like the old ones did. why would we want to start storing nuclear waste somewhere else? I personally would rather continue to store nuclear waste in the same place instead of ruining another location. Especially since new technologies are making it safer.
Now that i think about it, I don’t actually know that much about what kind of technologies we have, and I highly doubt that the people who write most of these articles have a degree in nuclear technology either. So who am I to say what’s safest, or what’s right? Who are they to tell us what’s best or safest or right?
In response to Vickie Puente:
I completely agree with your statement regarding using the resources we have concerning the development of possible alternative energy sources. The prospect of solar power and wind power are both sources that would not be depleted anytime soon and are always naturally occurring. However, your mention of water being a resource that we should readily use I don’t fully agree with. You say that you don’t suspect water to be a resource thats running out because after all “the world is 75% of it”. It seems when we make speculations like that regarding resources is when we get ourselves in danger. We speculate like that with resources such as oil, and so far that isn’t going too well. Water itself should be held as an extremely valuable resource as a vast amount of the “75%” of water you speak of is not drinkable. Also, this year snow pack in the Sierra Nevadas and other regions sharply decreased leading to drought scares in the Colorado River Basin. Another example is the California communities facing a strong possibility of water shortages and mandatory rationing this summer considering low snow-pack levels and reservoir levels below normal. So, I am simply saying speculating our amount of resources is not a good idea and should not be one incorporated in coming up with our next big “save-the-world” alternative energy movement. We never can be sure how much we have left of anything and how far it will go.
In response to Sean, I would agree that the article seems to lean more towards the negativity and lack of credibility in McCain’s plans for nuclear waste and its storage. However, i do think it is a good point to bring up. People want all the facts, good and bad, before deciding something that could affect everyone on a global scale. And to add, the article did not completely ignore Obama’s plans either. The author side-noted that Obama was putting in major funding for intense research on the subject, how to store it, recycle it, and how to find other alternative energy resources in general. (Also, to Dave Marshall-that would be awesome if they could make water run in the same energy efficiency as oil). Dave’s uplink is an example just of the sciences that Obama’s plans would be conducting, possibly finding another, more abundant source than that of oil or nuclear energy.
If nuclear energy could be stored and recycled just as safely and efficiently as France’s, then I would have no objections to it. They of course would have to be outside of densely populated area’s and would have to meet environmental regulations, but if all of this was achieved it would save us all so much more money and the risks of global warming. And back to Sean- I don’t understand your claim that you wouldn’t want multiple plants to be built even though the nuclear waste can be safely stored; if it’s safely stored for recycling, then what’s the problem with having more than one plant? It could help to employ thousands more people if multiple plants were built. And during our current recession, it can never hurt to have more available jobs. The article certainly doesn’t cover all of the necessary facts, but it does bring up the issue in general that our natural resources are running out, and we need to find some alternatives.
Dear Rachel,
I think you may have me confused on my agreement part of my post. I was merely talking about the government’s and Obama’s and McCain’s ability to come to an understanding on our energy crisis, not the validity of the nuclear energy plants. I believe we all need to work together to utilize both candidates plans into one super solution that benefits everyone. In regards to rich executives vs. the government, you are right, the executives are into themselves and will often do anything to do it. They offer bribes to government officials to pass legislation that protects only their interests. They are called pork barrel programs. Look at the Alaskan Senator Stevens.
I thought that I knew a lot about nuclear technology, I knew about half life and all of that stuff, but I did not know that we had the technology to recycle the used fuel. To say that America is trying to conserve energy, and just throw away all of that usable material is very stupid. For some reason I believe the lobby groups are somehow in on this, or like the article points out, someone has been reading too many spy novels. I hate to emulate France, but seriously this would help our country. Not only would it put us back onto our technological advantage, it would create a huge market for engineers to work these new plants, we would probably need more than one since we have more reactors than France does, and a surplus of stockpiled nuclear waste. This whole mountain of nuclear waste seems like a good idea, but this project must be costing America a huge amount. I doubt that hollowing out a mountain to hold 70,000 tons of nuclear waste, and then filling that whole in again is going to be very cheap. If we almost have enough waste to fill that capacity then something must be done. Otherwise we will have another mountain o’ waste, and another after that. I doubt that many environmentalists are happy about this mountain, and somehow two is worse than one in this case. So, lets go talk to France, and get some recycling done. Isn’t it the government that tells us to recycle all the time anyway?
In response to Cole Ziegler,
I agree with you that nuclear power is probably our future. As more countries begin to use nuclear power we will eventually use it too. One thing I don’t like about it is that it is dangerous. If there was ever an accident like an explosion it can cause cancer. The other thing is that with so many nuclear plants we will have more nuclear waste and we could run out of space to store it. Wind power would be a clean and cheap source of energy but they couldn’t go in places where there isn’t wind. So I agree with you Cole that nuclear power will be our main contributor for a long time to come.
I would have to fully agree with Vanessa Swenson’s argument. I too believe that McCain has good intentions but they seem to be a bit unreasonable. Like Obama says we should be continuing the search for other energy sources. And like Vanessa says we shouldn’t be “banking on one idea that could possible turn out to be more of a problem then a solution.” And yes, drilling would just continue to be a fine example of our country’s selfish ‘all about me’ attitude. I also don’t understand how McCain can plan on creating these 45 nuclear plants, considering it would take 8 to 9 years, and if he wasn’t re-elected, I feel this could pose a problem.
As far as I am concerned, we are just going to have to rely on nuclear power for an alternative energy source. I know we are researching new ways to create energy, but it is really not that simple. The more nuclear energy we use, the less fossil fuels we use, which is a huge concern among all of us. What Mccain is trying to do is reduce the widespread use of fossil fuels, and isn’t that what everyone is concerned about? By building 45 nuclear plants by 2030 it would dramatically reduce the use of those. Now i understand how expensive that will be, but in the long run it will be well worth it. Your children’s children will have many other options of energy and will not have to worry about global warming. If right now nuclear plants are producing 19 percent of our nations electricity, imagine how much it will produce with 45 more plants. We need the electricity, and solar and wind power are not going to cut it when not everyday is windy nor sunny. With nuclear power you don’t need a sunny day, a windy day, you produce it yourself. With all of the technology on making electric cars, and other things, we need the energy to do it. Obama’s plan to use $150 billion dollars for research is insane. It is not as simple as he is making it seem. It is really hard to find alternative sources. What if the research does not follow through as planned? All of that money goes to waste. We need to use nuclear energy for our future. Storing the waste in Nevada will be good. So why don’t we use research to find other ways to store the waste instead of finding other ways to create different kinds of energy?? We will just have to wait and see what the public chooses to vote for.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1122756973 which is not a hashcash value.
I think that Obama is right. We need to focus more on a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste instead of pumping the nation with new plants. We also need to research bio fuels much more than we already are. I also think that his idea to tax oil companies is good, because it might discourage them from charging so much for oil. I don’t really understand why McCain would want to build more and more nuclear power plants, when we don’t even really have the necessary means to safely dispose of it. Sure we have Yucca Mountain, but that sure isn’t going to stay empty forever. We need a better way of disposing the nuclear waste before we even begin to think about building more plants.
Here’s the thing that I really don’t understand; if France has already found a way to recycle nuclear waste, then why are we not using that same method? Is it because we “hate” the French? If it is, then that is complete and total bull. Why waste time and money trying to come up with some idea when there already is an effective way that has been developed in another country. Is it because we feel that we always need to come up with our own ideas, because we’re so narcissistic that we can’t except help from others? Well whatever the reason is, we need to just get over it and accept the French’s way of recycling their nuclear waste.
Why can’t we. The answer is really simple, fear. We are so worried about an incident that happened thirty years ago that we refuse to move on. It shows a gap in common sense to believe that in thirty years no one has made technology that makes nuclear reactors safe. McCain has a great point. If the French can do it, why can’t we. Let’s stop wasting our time trying to make fossil fuels work and realize the new frontier. Or I guess just kind of a new frontier since nuclear power has been around before most of our parents or even grandparents were born. We claim that nuclear power is unsafe. I personally don’t exactly consider fueling the economies of those who want nothing more than for the end of the United States safe either. Let’s stop funding the terrorists and start funding our future. With the innovative abilities of the U.S. we can become a producer of a cleaner safer fuel for the world. As for the argument of nuclear waste, although I agree with the article in the idea that we need to make the best of the uranium we use, I believe that we can control nuclear waste much easier than controlling air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It’s time to move on to a brighter future America.
In response to Matt:
I agree with Matt on the issue s that we should find a power source that is both beneficial to our economy and our environment, like the windmill. Nuclear waste is a huge dilemma that needs to be taken seriously and disposed of safely. Like Matt as said what happens when the Yucca Mountain storage site is filled? Where do you go next? McCain needs to plan for these things. Matt also brought up the point that Obama’s way of getting away from nuclear energy is also harsh on our environment. Obama also plans to put forth alot of money for his research. I believe we need another form of safe and cost efficient energy.
In response to Matthew Littrel
While windmills and dams offer a much safer form of energy, there are a lot of drawbacks to them. One, windmills are obviously not proving to be efficient, because thousands of them across the country are being shut down and left to sit there. If they were actually worth the amount of money being spent on them, then whoever owns them would not shut them down. Now on to the dams. Dams do offer great, safe, reliable energy, but there aren’t many places left in the country where it would be feasible to put in a dam. The river has to be so wide, and move so fast in order for the dam to either be cost efficient, or even produce enough energy. It’s as simple as just damming up a few rivers or so, or placing a couple hundred windmills across the countryside to solve our energy issues. One would think that the top minds that the government has working on this would have already thought about that.
In response to Ashley Rowe…
“Another concern is the radioactive waste that is created from nuclear energy. The waste is buried and sealed in dump sites that are “safely” taken care of.” Read the French article about what they are doing. We don’t have to dump our waste, we can recycle it. It’s just that we’re Americans and we don’t like to change, we want the new stuff, but don’t want to deal with the old.
“Lastly, nuclear energy creates a crisis in the form of war. Middle Eastern countries continue to develop nuclear power plants, and the United States goes insane and accuses these countries of developing nuclear weapons. This would only cause more of a problem for the United States!” I agree with you there. I mean, would you want your enemies having the same technologies as you? NO! You want as big of an advantage as you can possibly get over your enemies.
“McCain has a plan for this type of energy, but no decisive plan on how to take care of the waste and how to address the health concerns of the public.” There is actually a good safe alternative in another article Mr. Kautzman put up, its about harvesting solar energy, and it is a good alternative our next president should put into action.
And nuclear energy doesn’t have to be our future. I am very pro-solar power, especially now that we can store it. Nobody wants a nuke plant in their backyard, but im sure people wouldn’t mind having a couple of solar panels on their roofs instead.
Overabundance of any singular energy source will prove environmentally catastrophic. Currently, practicing drivers continue to release green house gasses, an overall pollution that screams- we are wasting too many natural resources! Futuristically, (“technologies of tomorrow like plug-in electric cars”) drivers will contribute to a new wave of pollution, a new wave of scarce resources, and a new wave of controversy. Thus, the emphasis of the “global warming” argument should focus specifically on conservation, nothing else.
Is nuclear energy the most efficient rout to conservation? I don’t know. Does anybody know? Nuclear energy definitely seems like an area worth exploring, along with various other new potential forms of energy. Variety and extensive investigation will eventually present the truths regarding the dos’ and don’ts’ of environmental efficiency. Short term replacements will not mend the current environmental crisis. Thus, McCain’s energy plan is faulty and ultimately ironic.
Therefore, I obviously agree with Senator Obama in that we urgently need to “step up research on biofuels and other forms of “clean” energy.”
I would also like to note the highlighted prideful tensions between the United States and France. I was unaware that the U.S. is jealous of France’s energy system, their lack of terrorists’ attacks, lack of bad guys stealing uranium, lack of contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferation, and lack of accidental explosions. If France can accomplish all of that, why can’t oui??
Energy has become such a big factor in the presidential race and this article gives people a look at the plans both candidates have for energy. I find it interesting that McCain is so focused on nuclear power. He has plans to have 45 plants built by 2030 and all of the waste produced by those plants and the current 104 is going to go to the Yucca Mountain storage site. I have a feeling that another storage site is going to be necessary if McCain follows through with his plan. I also noticed that the article said he planned to do more oil drilling. I find this interesting because currently gas prices are still pretty high; they are going down, but not enough. I think that many Americans are now thinking about looking to alternate forms of energy. This means that McCain might not be making a wise decision by promoting more oil consumption.
I believe energy will be a big issue in the coming months. I believe it is necessary that as many different alternate sources of energy be researched as possible. This will open options and maybe cause the amount of money going into paying for gas each month go down. Wind, solar, and even water power should be considered and I like the fact that Obama is planning on putting money towards researching biofuels. This could get the process going and help relieve our dependence on oil.
Senator Obama’s plan for the energy crisis relies solely on the inflation of our tires, Hilary. The man is a moron. We need to start some off shore drilling and some drilling in the ANWAR area. Yes, nuclear fuel is a great idea and I wouldn’t mind a few more of those in our country, but come on, we need to use the stuff we got! Its right there in Alaska, one of the 50 states so lets start a new migration, not a gold rush, but a Texas Tea rush to the north to make money and help the nation in more than one way, cheaper gas, and way more jobs for those who are willing to brave the cold of the Last Frontier.
this is in response to hillary
I disagree with you on that we should focus on conservation. We definitley should focus on conservation, but that can’t be our main focus. No matter what we do, we will always use more and more energy, just because our population is growing. Also, Nuclear energy doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, or at least I don’t think it does, and nuclear energy isn’t something that people really care if we use up. maybe if we use nuclear energy more, then things like uranium will become harder to get because of their increased value.
Also i don’t get this statement at all,”Thus, McCain’s energy plan is faulty and ultimately ironic.” I’m not seeing any Irony in McCain’s plans. Irony would be like “let’s go green… let’s all get in my hummer to go to the organic grocery store!”. (no offense intended to anyone who shops at organic grocery stores)
Nuclear energy is one way to go. It is not only effective, safe, and clean, but is also, for all those environment fanatics, safe on the environment. Here in the United States of America we have the most advanced nuclear technology and have found new ways to harness this power. There have also been discovered new ways to use the “waste” nuclear energy produces. The rising prices, well they are declining right now thank goodness, of oil are ridiculous. Most of the influx of prices comes from speculation. Gas prices are a whole other issue. Why is it that the price of oil can decrease by $25 and yet our gas prices only go down by 3 or 4 cents? Nuclear energy is a way of the future. For some reason we have been stuck in a rut with energy sources for too many years. We need to get with it and start using the energy available to us. Obama is reluctant to use nuclear energy because… because… oh, because of the waste it produces. There are two new ways in which waste can be eliminated or reused. They are called Reprocessing and High Temperature Breeder Reactors. I think the Democrats and Republicans need to quit caring who gets the credit for approving nuclear energy and pass legislation to start using it. You know, it is okay for Republicans and Democrats to agree every once in a while.
McCain seems to just be trying to get a point or some sort of level of media attention as he finally has gotten coverage over an important issue. Thought I do disagree with him that we need 45 more nuclear plants by 2030. I mean who knows where the foreign oil industry will go, with the price of oil dropping over $10 a barrel this week the controversy and problems may die down. This event is destroying McCain’s basically only stronghold on this issue. But back to his point that we need to stop the dependence on foreign oil is headed in the right direction. I mean most people in America think that we are the greatest country in the world, yet we depend on other countries for our oil.
If the nuclear plants were to be built and the waste be stored at the Yucca Mountain Storage Site, where would the waste go when space ran out? Or if there is some sort of reaction and radiation spread through out the state, Las Vegas, one of our countries most popular and populated, would be destroyed.
Now Obama has the right idea of taxing the oil companies that are ruining our lives and making them pay.
I’m sold… recycling plants are exactly what we need. What harm can a renewable energy source do? If we started now, we could have nuclear energy to a point to support us by the time that oil runs out, which would be a nice transition. we all know that oil will run out eventually… and it would be a real drag to run out of oil and have nothing else to take up the slack.
So what if we had some minor problems earlier on in our nuclear power aspirations? We shouldn’t fear our past. we should learn what we can, and keep moving forward. If we linger on mistakes, we won’t ever make progress.
Who knows.. with enough effort put into nuclear energy, we could have nuclear powered cars and such that need to be refuled only once a lifetime. We can do a lot with technology in a very small amount of time… just look at what we did with computers… a calculator the size of a room can now fit on a wrist watch. The possibilities for nuclear energy are endless, which is why i think that it would be a good idea to invest in it.
In response to Roy Wilkes:
I don’t quite understand why you think Obama is a moron. Even if you don’t like him he is clearly very intelligent. Obama actually supports off shore drilling, in addition with looking into new alternative clean sources of energy; so basically you have no case against his energy policy. Nuclear power is very efficient when done cautiously and the worst does not go wrong, however when the worst does go wrong it does have its flaws (Chernobyl, Ukraine). I am more comfortable with Obama looking into new safe ways of harnessing energy then McCain spending money on Nuclear power, which kills hundreds of people when accidents happen. Obama 08’
In response to Sean
First of all, I understand what ‘irony’ means. And now that I look back on it, I may have slightly misused the word. McCain’s plan isn’t ironic as much as it is contradictory. His plan ultimately will not accomplish what it is intended to: he is substituting an unhealthy problem with an unhealthy solution.
You said, “no matter what we do, we will always use more and more energy.” I don’t think you realize that, according to that statement, you are siding with me. Currently, we are consuming natural resources too rapidly; the environment is simply having trouble keeping up. Conservation is essential to future survival…of all species…Because planet Earth is not a renewable resource.
Also, you agreed with me a second time with the statement “maybe if we use nuclear energy more, then things like uranium will become harder to get because of their increased value.” This is exactly what I am talking about. Our existing pricy oil situation can be explained with simple economics: supply and demand. The earth is running out of resources! We must conserve them!
Furthermore, nuclear energy is something people definitely care about. Thus the statement, “nuclear energy isn’t something that people really care if we use up” is completely false. Why do you think nuclear power plants haven’t been approved since 1979?
Also, no where in my prior post did I claim that nuclear energy produces green house gasses… I am a little confused as to why you brought that up.
In response to Bruce. I agree with you that McCain is going to have to think about his plan a bit more. Like where he is going to store all of the waste. I like your point that he has interests in off shore drilling but that may not become very necessary as we move away from that technology. But the simple fact is that the technology and availability for the alternative energy is a ways away and off shore drilling could help us sooner. I also agree with your enjoyment of Obama’s plan for more biofuel technology and alternate energy research.
While it may be a nice hope for the Democrats and Republicans to agree on an issue it is unlikely that it will happen. That would just defy the laws of all politics. Even if agreeing on something such as nuclear energy would greatly benefit the nation as a whole. While the French haven’t had any mishaps with Plutonium or Uranium or other highly hazardous chemicals, what’s to say that we won’t? Also, I think that the French are less likely to utilize the chemicals for a violent purpose because they aren’t as focused on constantly striving for the newest and best weapons technology. They’d prefer to perfect their wines and cheeses and buy the technology from other countries after it’s created. And while nuclear technology may be good now, what happens the first time there’s a chemical spill at the Yucca Mountain storage facility? Who’s held responsible for the environmental damage? In my opinion nuclear energy should not be something to be relied upon, there are too many dangerous effects to the environment and too much chance for something to happen to people or animals.
I personally like the prospect of nuclear energy, but I would like to comment on how the fear of a nuclear disaster is unnecessary. People look to Three Mile Island and immediately say no to nuclear energy, why? No one was hurt. It is like saying I don’t want to fly because it is too dangerous because they hear of a plane crash. Yet, they will drive across the country in their cars which is much more dangerous. How many people have died in fires or other accidents in coal or oil plants. Now compare that to nuclear plants. Then extrapolate the numbers to make things even. Now people say what about mining the uranium. It is probably just as dangerous as mining the coal. What about disposal? Did you know that nuclear coolant water which surrounds the reactor rods contain less radioactivity than an average bottle of beer? I read in a post that it may be cleaner energy but the process of obtaining the material is not clean. Well then we should probably stick to coal where both processes are dirty. Nothing is ever 100% safe, or efficient or anything. There was the Chernobyl incident but that is it, and it is most certainly not a common result. So lose the fear and worry about more pressing issues.
During the last school year I attended a lecture at Whitowrth on alternative engergy sources. They just briefly talked about nuclear power but I’ve recently poked around to figure out what’s what. Nuclear power even though it seems like a good alternative to fossil fuels really isn’t. I mean nuclear waste is dangerous and what happens when the waste storage center fills up do we make another? and then another and then another? eventually we’re going to start running out of safe places to keep thw waste. And I’m sure that even though we’ll make sure that everything is handled with care someone will get careless its just a human thing we can’t be perfect so something will go wrong and then a mass amount of people will get hurt. So instead of putting people in danger why not look to other alternative engergies. At this lecture I went to they talked about using algae. The power plants would be relatively small. You can grow huge amounts of algae in small areas because the had this apparatus of plastic bags that were connected. You would then take the algae and make bio-diesel. The power plants would in turn make CO2 when they create the fuel but the CO2 would be collected and sent through tubes to the growing algae which would feed them and help them grow. It makes much more sense to look into alternatives like that, that would be safer.
This country needs to do something to eliminate its dependence on foreign energy. If we start using our own resources and be less dependent on foreign energy then prices on gas will decrease. The problem is that our dependence on foreign oil is so great that oil rich countries can charge anything they want. It’s all about supply and demand. There are so many options out there that are clean and efficient ways to power our country. If using nuclear energy is the answer to our energy needs, then so be it. In the presidential election, the candidates bring up the issues of energy but they do not provide the answers to the problems. Government needs to create serious research agencies, like NASSA was created for the space race in the 60’s, to find alternative energy sources for Americans. The United States needs to be the fore-runner for research and technology like it once was. I agree with Obama that we need to find new energy sources, but why can’t we also use nuclear power in the mean time. I have said this many times in previous blogs–The reason the economy is in a recession is because of the price of energy and gasoline. Let’s pull together like the world leading nation that we are and come up with some real answers.
I belive that we should be doing what we can to become energy independant and that nuclear powerplants are a good source of electricity. One problem was definitly radiation poisoning but that problem is resolved and we know way more about nuclar energy than we did thirty years ago. Even if it will take eight years to implament it is something that we know will work. We still need to be carefull, any time a country leaps without looking then seriouse reprocutions follow.
What gets me is that anytime a Republican offers a way to get new energy the left shoots it down but then they complain about not having any energy while having done nothing to help. We need to start getting independent energy and fund reasearch for new energy. Instead of hopeing that the new technology reaches us in time we will have a sure source that we can depend on while activly searching to find a new one.
One thing I can say right now though is: at least McCains energy plan involves more than just a tire gauge.
In response to Hillary,
You say that conservation is the answer for global warming and our energy crisis. The fact is that the world is not all the sudden going to stop driving to work and start walking. Conservation is good and people should do it but it will not answer all of our problems. One thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the American population lives in the suburbs and mass transit or walking is not a viable option. Sure there may be a push with higher gas prices for more people to move back into the cities, but this type of change in our lifestyles will take time.