McCain Backs Nuclear Power

bagsc writes "Senator John McCain set out another branch of his energy policy agenda today, with a key point: 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030." So it finally appears that this discussion is back on the table. I'm curious how Nevada feels about this, as well as the Obama campaign. All it took was $4/gallon gas I guess. When it hits $5, I figure one of the campaigns will start to promote Perpetual Motion.

Get it right, John!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pronounced "nukular," you insensitive clod!

-- The Republican Party

Bravo!

[Maimun]

Yet another reason to support McCain.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[hatchet]

We only need enough fission fuel to last us for 50 years... after that we can count on fusion. Fusion is the future.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[Norwell Bob]

Fission is nuclear, fusion is nukuler, right?

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[cthulu_mt]

Because volcano's don't conveniently locate themselves next to large population centers?

You've got the logic reversed. Large population centers wisely do not locate themselves near volcanoes.

See: Pompei

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[Red Flayer]

You've got the logic reversed. Large population centers wisely do not locate themselves near volcanoes.

See: Pompei

You've got the logic misordered as well. Pompeii was, in fact, located near a large volcano.

Wise population centers do not locate themselves near large volcanoes. FTFM.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[Rogerborg]

Also, you can power an entire metropolis by hugging a rainbow, if you just wish hard enough!

When the sky clouds over, are you going to sit in your own filth in the dark, like a Frenchman? No, you - and your neighbours and the the schools and hospitals - are going to start drawing from the grid.

In your dolphin-friendly future, where is that on-demand power going to magically appear from? No Star Trek technobabble: what's going to provide enough completely reliable power every cycle of every second of every minute of every day to keep the lights on and the intartubes pumping?

Well?

Re:Nukes could solve a lot of issues

[Muad'Dave]

How about a 1.21 gigawatt plant dedicated to time travel?

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[meringuoid]

Wise population centers do not locate themselves near large volcanoes.

Let's be fair to Pompeii here: they didn't know Vesuvius was a volcano, they didn't know what a volcano was. I hear (admittedly from a popular kids' pulp SF show) that the word volcano was only coined afterwards. By the Romans. To explain what the hell just happened, and blame it on the god Vulcan.

Re:Nukes could solve a lot of issues

[multipartmixed]

Doc Brown's stuff doesn't run on gigawatts, it runs in jiggawatts.

I'm not sure what those are, but that's clearly what he said.

I think it has something to do with dancing at a riot.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[Deadstick]

By the Romans. To explain what the hell just happened, and blame it on the god Vulcan.

Dirty pagans. We decent Christians blame it on St. Helen.

rj

Entropy Power

[Fujisawa Sensei]

We need to convince McCain to that we need to harness entropy as a source of power. Since it just keeps growing, and we're never going to run out.

Re:Oil not equal to nuclear

[mgblst]

There is no chance that there will be cars powered by "under the hood" nuclear reactors in the near future.

Why not, American cars are big enough.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[maxume]

You should contact security at the plant you visited, you shouldn't have been close enough to the waste for it to give you a warm glow.

Re:Oil not equal to nuclear

[maxume]

Yay! 300,000 people down, 6.4997 billion to go.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[cjb658]

Doesn't matter, if it's still producing heat, it's still useful as fuel. Preprocess it into high-concentrations, and reburn it until all you have is lead, strontium and irradiated Iron! :-)

We could use it to quickly fertilize crops and make tomacco!

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying, is that you've never heard of supply and demand?

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[yoder]

Reprocessing is not being done. It is not even being proposed as a possibility. Nuclear plants are too expensive to make money as it is, and forcing these plants to reprocess would drive even the plants now in operation out of business.

Nuclear is not financially sustainable when you factor in waste disposal and storage or waste reprocessing.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[hey!]

It is not really your fault. It is the fault of the hysteria-spreading, anti-nuclear, tree-huggers.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I see you have a great deal of substantive, sophisticated discussion ahead of you, so I'll just leave you to it.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[jjrockman]

Thanks to you, I now have a headache.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[mapsjanhere]

In the 1980s, you saw a lot of bumper stickers in Germany
"why nuclear power? We get our electricity from the outlet."
The bad part was, half the people carrying the sticker didn't realize it was meant to be sarcastic.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[cliffski]

well good luck with all that, but until pro-nuke campaigners learn to explain why every nuclear power plant needs a huge govt subsidy, how they deal with the waste and the security and proliferation and decommissioning concerns, and spend less time snorting with derision and insulting and abusing people who ask these questions, you will never get new nuclear power stations.

Re:Seriously, WTF?

[networkconsultant]

So America is for sale, get over it. :P it's all that dang Socialisam you guys avoided due to bad polotics *cough* military industrial complex *cough* mcarthyisam *cough* Eisenhower was right *cough*...