McCain Urges Building 45 New Nuclear Plants

[villager]

Source: NY TImes

McCain Urges Building 45 New Nuclear Plants

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Senator John McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors to be built in the United States by 2030, a goal that he called “as difficult as it is necessary.”

In his third straight day of campaign speechmaking about energy and $4-a-gallon gasoline, the presumptive Republican nominee told the crowd at a town hall-style meeting at Missouri State University that he saw nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to conventional sources of energy that emit greenhouse gases. He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants.

Mr. McCain has long promoted nuclear reactors, but Wednesday was the first time that he specified the number of plants he envisioned. Currently, there are 104 reactors in the country supplying some 20 percent of the electricity consumed. No new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States since the 1970s.

“China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades,” Mr. McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18cnd-mccain.html

[islandmkl]

1. 45? Screw that...put one in every state, a new one...

let every state deal with all their own radioactive toxic shit...

every state keeps its own power, every state keeps its own waste...

[Oregone]

35. Can every state also OWN the plant that WE THE PEOPLE are paying for?

Then Im sold. Otherwise, we are just giving money to rich people that will use it to build something that makes something they will further charge us for.

[Ian David]

46. Socialize the risk and the cost, privatize the profits. Typical Repuke scam. n/t

[KamaAina]

71. We don't need one

the power demand is too small. No way to ship power 2400 mi. to CA, either. :shrug:

Same goes for AK.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mrs. Overall]

2. Will McCain still be alive in 2030? Nothing like starting something you won't be around to complete.

Besides not being around for the ramifications of such a project.

[high density]

3. Gotta love the "global warming" guy from the Center of American Progress that poo-poos nuke plants

We give the oil industry billions in handouts, so I don't see what would be so different to give incentives for building new nuke plants. It's not a permanent fix, but it's a decent bandaid for a few decades unless we want to plunge back into the dark ages or kill ourselves with coal.

[psquare]

14. Please, Please, let us develop nuclear AS WELL as wind, solar, tides, etc.!

[high density]

20. As well as, yes I certainly agree with that.

:thumbsup:

[amandabeech]

95. I agree. Let's use everything to generate electricity except hydrocarbons.

Let's really focus on recycling the fuel so that we won't have to bury or mine more.

Surely, we can do more technologically than we did 20-30 years ago.

[Journeyman]

4. Can he at least name half of the sites where he proposes to build these? . . .

At the least, tell us what States he foresees them going into? In any State, the EIRs will consume half the time between now and his due date, so he must have a solid idea where he believes these will be built. Can he at least tell us that basic information, or is this another "8th Grade President" campaign promise -- no homework, free ice cream, nuclear power to salve our woes.

[ben_meyers]

5. Just goes to prove the old adage that

even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Megahurtz]

6. No Fucking Nukes

and no more Oil!

When are these World dominating Nazis going to get the message?

[ben_meyers]

10. Maybe when you share with the rest of the world

How you power that PC of yours with what ever magic fairy dust you're using now.

[fascisthunter]

101. He's Demanding Change to how He Powers That Computer

Just in case you really have reading comprehension problems.

[Ecumenist]

17. Amen, Megahurtz! We have an abundance of sun and wind in many

places. Why aren't we utilising the free things we have that are neither polluting nor limited?

[Megahurtz]

19. Exactly!

Because the greedy ones in charge are controlling the purse strings!

[Pavulon]

27. Does solar work at night. maybe big batteries

to hold the thousands of megawatts demanded by heavy industry.

[ladjf]

30. Wind, tidal, and geothermal work at night.

[Pavulon]

32. bird choppers, ocean trash and volcano power

are not always available..the ap1000 is and we are 30 years behind on using this technology.

[greenman3610]

34. exactly, read Scientific American, January o8

Solar Grand Plan

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

or this piece from Technology Review

"Fossil-fuel proponents often say that solar can't do the job, that solar can't run at night, solar can't run the economy," says David Mills, Ausra's founder and chairman. "That's true if you don't have storage." He says that solar-thermal plants are the solution because storing heat is much easier than storing electricity. Mills estimates that, thanks to that advantage, solar-thermal plants capable of storing 16 hours' worth of heat could provide more than 90 percent of current U.S. power demand at prices competitive with coal and natural gas. "There's almost no limit to how much you can put into the grid," he says.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19440/?a=f

[Pavulon]

36. wow, re-invent the wheel..

or we could use real technology used in western europe and which we have used on naval vessels for decades.

You can not smelt metal without continuous power in the megawatt range. That is not possible NOW. Reactors are.

[MadHound]

52. Sure it is

Geothermal is perfect for powering smelters. Iceland is right now constructing a large aluminum smelting plant powered only by geothermal. We could do the same in the mountain west or in Oregon, Washington area.

[Pavulon]

56. AP1000

simple effective made in the usa..

for a distributed grid that solution does not work.

[MadHound]

59. Tell me this

Can you safely and permanently get rid of all the radioactive waste from that plant? Can you completely, one hundred percent get rid of human error in that plant.

Get back to me when you solve those two problems.

[Pavulon]

60. Nevada..Nuked it before

still a great place to dump radioactive waste in..

[MadHound]

62. Cool, I let you be the one to inform the entire SW that they can expect radiation in their water

Nevada is one of the stupidest places to put nuclear waste. Too many fault lines, too many cracks with easy access to groundwater or drinking water.

Sorry, but burying the waste in the ground, any ground, is not the answer. All you're doing is passing a major problem to future generations, who may or may not be aware of it. Don't you think that we're already passing on enough pollution problems to our children's children? Do we really want to add nuclear waste to that gift basket?

[Lorentz]

64. How does the radiation get into the water? How deep are the water tables?

Can you provide links to justify your statement?

[MadHound]

74. *Sigh* What, too lazy to do the research yourself, keep yourself educated?

The radiation gets into the water table when the containers(generally they're either steel drums or DU containers) deteriorate, compromising the integrity of the container, allowing the radioactive material to escape. Water carries these particles(from condensation, flood or such) into the ground, and then on down to the water table. Once it is in the water table, you're screwed.

As far as how deep the water tables are, it depends on the location. The Yucca Mt. debacle has fairly shallow water tables(you can find the exact number of feet on topographic and geologic maps available from the US government), and is also located at the confluence of four faults(Yay! Seismic activity!). In fact according to the EPA, according to their dye tests at Yucca Mt., any material that escaped out of containment and into the water table would reach the Las Vegas groundwater supply in a couple of weeks(sorry, as far as I know, this report is in print form only, you can probably request one from the EPA).

Just because we can throw the waste underground doesn't mean that we should. We're adapting the attitude of out of sight, out of mind, which is foolish and dangerous, and we'd be handing our children's children an environmental disaster. Don't you think that between polluted air, a failing economy and all the rest that we're already giving our antecedents enough of our problems?

[Lorentz]

84. I dout your information.

Waste is stored on average about 1000 feet above the water table, which flows north (away from Las Vegas and into Death Valley).

Also, how long do you think it takes for solid waste (even dissolved in water) to travel through 1000 feet of rock? That very process will also act as a filtration system, plus the timescale will further kill off some of the more dangerous isotopes.

[MadHound]

89. Then go do your own damn research

I have, it was part of my job in health physics to know this sort of shit. If you don't want to believe somebody who made a career, in part out of such knowledge, go do your own research. The EPA documents concerning Yucca Mt. are freely available, all you have to do is go look.

And you laughingly talk about timescale, do you fucking realize the timescale we're talking about here? Tens of thousands of years, at minimum. That's for the non-uranium stuff, we're on a scale of millions of years.

So tell you what, go out, do your own research, hey, I've given you plenty of places to actually read the documents. Then you can get back to me. But sadly, I think like you're the rest of the pro-nuke sheeple, you're mind is made up, to the point that anything that disagrees with that viewpoint will be first ridiculed, then ignored, facts be damned. Sadly typical of the society we live in, where intellectual ability and trivialities like facts aren't needed. Hell, look at Iraq:eyes:

[NutmegYankee]

70. You can bury it.

The high level radioactive waste decays quickly, leaving the low level waste. Why is this such a hard concept? Where did you get the Uranium in the first place - IN THE GROUND!

[MadHound]

73. You obviously have no clue about nuclear physics

The high level radioactive waste will take tens of thousands of years to decay. Uranium 235 has a half life of hundreds of millions of years, uranium 238 has a half life of billions of years. Even your so called "low level waste has half lives generally measured in the tens of thousands of years. Hell of a gift to leave for our children.

The problem with putting such waste in the ground is that it won't stay in the ground. Those steel drums and DU containers will eventually deteriorate, some faster than others, allowing radioactive material to actually get into the ground, then into the water table, then you're screwed.

Please, inform yourself as to the facts of nuclear physics and the waste problem.

[NutmegYankee]

77. Neither do you.

Try learning about this stuff before posting.

[MadHound]

82. It's a miracle I made it through the past few years and such then

Especially since I worked at a nuclear reactor over that period of time:eyes:

I know how a reactor works, inside and out pal, what's your experience or knowledge? Oh, yeah, being an internet intellectual who has no clue as to how things work in real life:eyes: Oh tell me then oh so knowledgeable one, where, exactly, are my statements wrong?

Or are you simply talking out your ass again, saying more about a subject than you actually know about it? I suspect that's the case.

[Lorentz]

85. "Especially since I worked at a nuclear reactor over that period of time"

Just because you know how a reactor works doesn't mean you aren't swayed by wacko-liberal scare tactic arguments. I already point out that your statement about tracer dyes showing up in Las Vegas is false (the water flows into the Amargosa Valley, north-west of Yucca). Your other statements -- half lives, worst-case scenario of waste leaking into the ground -- are perhaps "true," but so what? They are taken out of context and blown out of proportion. The timescales involved for that to occur are extremely long, and the literature generally indicates that nature will act as a natural filtration system.

[MadHound]

92. That's it, discount the expert in the field, the person who's actually done the research

Who's read the reports, whose expertise is top quality, sure, chuck it all for the opinion of somebody who doesn't have any such experience, whose closest experience is being some keyboard commando:eyes:

Here are some links for you to research. Please note that all of these are neutral sources. The fact that you discount such academic and professional sources as being "wacko-liberal" only goes to show up your own ignorance, stupidity and bias.

<http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/chlorine.htm> Rapid water flow, straight down into the water table, not good. Shows how Chlorine 56 from the nuke tests just a few decades ago is rapidly infusing itself into the ground, not at the rate of thousands of years, but mere decades.

Oh, and it's tough for the water to flow NW into the Amargosa Valley, when the Amargosa Valley is south of Yucca Mt.<> If you check out the flow gradients for that area, it goes from the north and NW to the south and southeast, into the Amargosa Valley and *whoopsie* the Las Vegas metro area towards the south and southeast.<http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/Sedlacek/links/geology.htm>

Your lack of basic knowledge, and the gall you show in actually displaying such a basic lacking, is indeed breathtaking. You obviously haven't done even the most simple of research, you don't even know the proper water flow direction nor the porosity of the ground around Yucca Mt. You think that the ground will act as some sort of filter eliminating all of this waste, you obviously know very little to nothing about the reality of the situation, only the bullshit that you get from either RW e-mails on the subject, or RW internet sites on the subject.:crazy:

Until you get your shit straight, you have absolutely no room to speak with authority on this subject. Your demonstrated lack of knowledge disqualifies you, so until you actually acquaint yourself with the facts, do the research, find out the reality of the situation, all you are doing is spreading internet bullshit. Now that's really intellectually rigorous.:eyes: Thanks, but I think I'll trust the material I've read, the sources that I've consulted, and the conclusions that I've reached. After all, this is all based on those "wacko-liberal" sources like the EPA, DOE, the US Geological Service, the NRC, and those notorious hotbeds of "wacko-liberal" lies, reputable academic institutions:eyes:

So until you can come up with a source(s) that is reputable, verifiable, and either governmental or academic(peer-reviewed) in nature, all you're doing is talking out your ass, and doing so badly(Armagosa Valley NW of Yucca:rofl:). So please, go educate yourself, and stop spreading the bullshit about something you obviously have no clue about. You're only doing the people reading this a disservice, spreading bullshit propaganda that could be dangerous, and making yourself look damn foolish. Realize when you've brought a knife to a gunfight, and have the sense to bow out gracefully.

[ovidsen]

87. Nuke fuel waste? Hell, we can't solve the FUBARS we have now..

Industrial emissions, pollutants from fossil fueled vehicles?

No way you're gonna convince me that nuclear power is squeaky clean.

But there's no way you're gonna convince me that nuclear power, properly disposed of, is a lot more damaging than the fossil fuel's we're already addicted to.

Or maybe you just want to sit in front of a (polluting) word burning fire, reading from a (polluting) whale oil or kerosine powered lamp while you wait for daylight so your (polluting) horse or mule can take you to town so you can buy your 3 day old newspapers. Oh, baby. Nothing like relying on the fuels that don't have the fraction of the power you need to provide enough power to fire up your computer, TV, or even your radio, for that matter.

You can have your 19th Century energy. I'm happy with the 21st, including fossil fuels, wind, solar and wind power, and (yes) nuclear reactors.

I'm not just going green, I'm GLOWING green.

[kentauros]

80. This solar works at night:

Harvesting the sun's energy with antennas

:)

Also the "bird-choppers" bit is a myth that just won't go away. Please read the following links and refrain from the misnomer.

Birds and Wind Power
What Kills Birds? Human Causes of Bird Fatalities
Wind Power and Bird Studies
Bats and Wind Power

[crawfish]

67. Do you realize how much land it takes for wind farms and solar panels...

to power a major city?

Do you understand how damaging they are to the ecology?

Until we develop cost-efficient higher-yield solar panels, using solar power for large-scale purposes is counterproductive. As are wind farms; nobody wants thousands of acres of those things polluting their view.

Nuclear power is the safest and greenest power source we have right now for large-scale projects. It's too bad that the greens are subverting their use in their mistaken connection with nuclear power to nuclear weapons.:eyes:

[hendo]

18. Nazis?

Thats quite an overuse of the term there. Good job. Maybe if people like you keep using it to describe everyone they don't like it will eventually lose all of its orignal meaning, and by meaning everything it will cease to mean anything.

bravo.

[Carnea]

90. So coal and natural gas it is..... nt

[corporatemedia]

7. McCain Goes Nuclear....Aims 45 at America...n/t

[navarth]

8. Take the money you want to waste on nuclear and invest it in solar and wind.

remember: radioactive waste that lasts 96,000 years. there is no way you can guarantee safety. forget about it.

[islandmkl]

9. neoconazi/corporatist fascists will figure out some way to make wind & sun...

'non-renewable' resources, and in the name of national security needing de-regulated privatization... 'allowing' high prices/huge profits...

while they will control the delivery...

[navarth]

16. that's a distinct possibility

if there's money in it....watch out...

[Lorentz]

33. So what. Lock it up, bury it, no more problem.

Radiation intensity gets weaker by a factor of 4 every time you move twice as far away from it. Bury it a half a mile down and it's gone. Bury it further away and it's effectively vanished.

There are other deadly things underground, too -- liquid magma, toxic gas, etc... -- but I don't hear anyone complaining that those might kill us at any moment.

[Javaman]

48. If you are okay with it, you be the one that buries it, alright? nt

[Lorentz]

63. It's in shielded containers. Why would anyone have a problem with burying it?

The radiation coming from the red brick and granite countertops in your home is more dangerous than what escapes those containers.

[Javaman]

66. Knock yourself out, I wouldn't go near it. I have read up enough

on the "safety" of nuclear waste containers to know I don't want anythng to with them.

[MadHound]

93. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! More ignorance on display!

Having actually measured the radiation coming from a container of nuclear waste(both spent-fuel and non-spent-fuel waste containers) and granite countertops(works great in labs) I know for a fact that you're talking out your ass. If you know so much, I guess you can give me what the respective measurements are(in either mR's or curries, your choice) and show us all how much you know:rofl:

Dude, stop it right now. You're simply showing yourself up as an ignorant dumbass on this matter, and the more you try to show otherwise, the deeper you're going into the bullshit. Sorry, but simple common sense should tell you than nuclear waste, even in the container, is hotter than brick or granite:eyes: Otherwise we'd be seeing the nice magenta trefoil radiation sign in front of every kitchen and bath store rather just on the back, front and sides of the trucks transporting that nuclear waste.

Oh, and remember, I addressed the problems about burying it up above. Non-fuel waste is stored in steel drum containers, drums that eventually oxidize and deteriorate. Fuel waste is stored in DU containers, but given time, and the fact the Yucca Mt. is located at the confluence of several faults, those DU containers will also deteriorate and discharge their load. Remember, with non-fuel waste, we're talking about a scale of tens of thousands of years, and fuel waste, millions of years.

[Lorentz]

96. You're a real piece of work.

[MadHound]

98. Yes, but I'm a piece of work who knows whereof I speak

That's more than can be said about you and most of the rest of the posters around here, I have the expertise. What do you have against somebody who has the background and experience to talk knowledgeably on this subject?

Such blatant disregard and disrespect for experts in the field, simply because they disagree with one's much less expert opinion, is part of the reason that this country is in the position it is now. Too many people who are the experts in varied fields have been cut out of the decision making process, and thus we've wound up with an administration making horrible decisions that negatively impact all of us. Yet despite this, you and others continue to scoff and ridicule authentic experts and sources as "whacko liberal", even though you yourself, nor anybody you know has nowhere near the same level of experience. I've seen this phenomenon time and again, and I've got to wonder, why do you engage in such a foolish practice? Science and technology isn't a matter of faith and opinions, it deals with facts, yet time and again people like yourself choose to disregard facts in favor of faith or opinions. Why?

I'm not trying to be smarmy or smartass here, I'm genuinely interested in this phenomenon, since we see it everyday, with decisions ranging from war to economic policy being implemented that aren't grounded in fact, but rather one's faith or opinion. Since you seem to be one of these people, I thought I would try to find out from you the motivation for such a complete disregard of facts and expertise.

[Lorentz]

99. Your expertise is still delivered with a decided political/social slant....

... and conflicts with much of the literature. I don't doubt you worked at a reactor -- I have no reason to. You should also realize that you aren't the only nuclear physicist on this board, and likely aren't the leading "expert", either.

What basically turns people off your argument is that you are so offensively overbearing and holier-than-thou. Furthermore, you try to argue by intimidation ("I am an expert, therefore you are wrong"), and in fact you've only attacked people on nonsensical points (so I screwed up the direction to the Amargosa Valley -- sue me! That doesn't change the fact that water flows away from Las Vegas). Oh yes, I also invoked some hyperbole (of course granite countertops aren't hotter than high-level waste, unless the high level waste measures about 0.04 mR). Of course the current activity rate of the waste is irrelevant, since it will be buried and will take tens of thousands of years to re-appear (if it ever does), and will have significantly decayed in that time (exponential decays are quickest at the beginning -- but I'm sure you know that).

Now, a few comments on your "literature": in re: the water table, what does the surface gradient have to do with that? The waste is underground. The only reference to the water table in your link (http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/Sedlacek/links/geology.htm) says that it's flat. The article does not discuss flow direction, and never mentioned Las Vegas (other than to contextualize the location of YM). Maybe I'm just stupid, as you so joyfully pointed out numerous times (NW from Yucca! hahahah!), and need it explained to me.

Also, what kind of "neutral academic reference" is that? "TERM PROJECTS"? Surely not peer-reviewed. Seems more like a student project, or a set of on-line notes. Note that there are several sources (including the Las Vegas Water District site, citing the USGS: http://www.lvvwd.com/html/wq_water_facts_yucca.html) that indicate the direction of flow in the water table is away from Vegas (which is what I said -- sue me for giving the wrong direction, which is about the only flaw you had with my argument, and chose to immaturely berate me for it).

Here's another source, although I'm sure you'll discount it as biased: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/why/index.shtml

In terms of isotope leakage into the ground, except for the chlorine reference, you yourself have given no information about the projected percolation times for the relevant fission products, Pu, depleted U, etc... All you've said is the usual scare tactics of "they'll be around for 10,000 years and more!". That means nothing without contextualizing it in terms of their half-lives, projected activity at the time they actually do seep through (if they do), and so forth. Also, you might want to investigate the "wacko claims" that plutonium does not travel well in water (see e.g. the Oklo reactor and containment of isotopes, http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml).

Finally, I'm surprised that you have such a well-founded understanding of the geology of Yucca to flat-out say that it's unstable. Some other scientists would disagree with you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204170120.htm
Clearly, as you can tell from the related story links, this is a debate issue, so you can't claim with absolute authority that your position is the correct one.

If Yucca were as unstable as you say, and if that were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (as you say), then there would be no question in anyone's mind that it's a bad deal. But the fact is that there is, if anything, conflicting evidence at this point. And your overbearing presentation is only going to hurt your point of view (regardless of its veracity).

[MadHound]

100. So you don't like how I've been talking to you, eh?

Well, if you hadn't come across as some sort of expert, then I wouldn't have torn into you. But you are the worst type of internet expert, one whose mind is already made up, and who is willing to spew the most idiotic falsehoods as fact. And when you're confronted with somebody who actually does know whereof they speak, you still insist that your ignorant bullshit is somehow still on par with the information and expertise I have. Finally to top it all off, you make stupid mistakes, not just once, but multiple times. If you don't want to be made a fool, stop coming across as one. As Lincoln said, it is better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt about the matter. I have little tolerance for people such as yourself, those who have some little knowledge gleaned from the 'net or the Discovery channel or from political emails they receive, and now think that they are an expert in the field, when the truth of the matter is that all you're doing is spreading disinformation. Congratulations, you're being a tool. And about making trivial mistakes, I'm sorry, but there is no excuse to do so, and all you've done is display your lack of intellectual rigor. As I've shown you, the groundwater flows from the N and NW towards the S and SW, straight into the Armargosa Valley and on towards Las Vegas. These sorts of points aren't trivial, despite your whining that they are, and yes, I will correct your errors when I see them. Don't like that, then get your facts straight, even the little ones.

As far as a political slant goes, sorry, but facts aren't a matter of politics. It is how people interpret, manipulate and use those facts that is political. What's sad is that you're trying to use bogus bullshit facts and draw

Now then, to your lame attempt at refuting my arguments, it is obvious that you don't bother to do any real searching around, research, or even closely read sources. If you had, you would have found that the author, Marcia K. Schulmeister, at the link that you so shallowly dismissed as a term project is actually an assistant professor at Emporia State University who has a PhD. in hydrology/geology. You would have also seen the following quote: "Groundwater flows from the north and northwest to recharge the aquifers below Yucca Mountain. Natural discharges of groundwater from beneath Yucca Mountain probably occur further south at Franklin Lake Playa, 60 km away. None of the groundwater in the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system enters the Colorado River or Lake Havasu. It does eventually reach the Amargosa Valley, an agricultural community (US EPA 2001)." Did you catch that, flows south and southeast, which is in the same direction as the Armargosa Valley, Death Valley, and eventually Las Vegas.

Oh, and linking to a site that simply makes the bald faced statement that ground water doesn't flow into the Las Vegas groundwater system simply isn't enough. Their USGS link only takes you to the USGS homepage, and whatever report they're referring to isn't on that site. Meanwhile, as I showed above, the water from Yucca Mt. flows towards the south and southeast, I used a reputable(Phd.) source, and backed it up with the fact that there is a EPA report out there stating that dye tracers from the Yucca Mountain Repository shows up in Las Vegas groundwater within two weeks(believe me, I would love to link to this report, but it is a paper report only, so you're going to have to go out and do some research).

The facts go further. If you have access to an academic library and their journal collection, go look up Environmental Geology, from July of '97, and you'll find an article on the other dangers about Yucca Mt. Here's a brief abstract on the article, and please note, this is being published in a peer reviewed journal by reputable experts in their field. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/06/970629235257.htm>

As far as your ludicrous claim that Yucca is stable, how do you explain the fact that within a twenty year time period, 621 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater have occurred within a fifty mile radius of Yucca Mt.?<http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm> Sounds pretty unstable to me:shrug:

Now as far as your confusion regarding politics and facts, let me straighten you out. Facts are facts, they are pretty unalterable. Facts like Yucca Mt. is located at the confluence of a numbers of faults is not a political matter. Neither are facts like the groundwater flow, the dangers of deteriorating containers, and the half lives of various isotopes(some of which are in the millions of years, remember that). What is political is how those facts are used, interpreted or ignored, and that is the game you are engaged in. You've bought into some second or third hand political interpretation of the facts that have twisted the well documented dangers of Yucca Mt. into a picture of safety and bliss, when the facts of the matter say almost diametrically the opposite. What's worse is that you've uncritically bought into these interpretations and are continuing to spread the lies and bullshit. That is what I find so galling about people like you, you've gotten your "expertise" from areas that are twice and three times removed, that have been spun to fit a certain viewpoint, and you bought into the spin, lock stock and barrel. Worse, when presented with the actual unbiased facts, you scorn and ridicule them, as you do with a voice of expertise. Do you purposefully wish to remain ignorant? Are you that stubborn? What is the good of having this sort of mindset, one that rejects facts for spin? This is what I find so maddening about mindsets like yours, that whole "facts be damned" approach. Sorry, but that is the sign of a lazy intellect.

If you don't like my tone, oh well. Stop trying to be an armchair expert in an area where it is obvious that your knowledge is seriously lacking. Stop spreading the bullshit and disinformation that you've picked up along the way. Rather, get off your ass and do some actual research of your own. Read the journals, read the reports, all of them, not just the politically spun synopsis that you're accustomed to. Yes, that takes time and effort to do, but it is well worth it.


The facts aren't conflicting, the answers are clear that Yucca is not a good place to store our nuclear waste. The only things that are conflicted is the spin being put on those facts, and the foolish people who buy into that spin because they are too intellectually lazy to go out and research the facts on their own.

[fascisthunter]

103. You Mean You Can't Counter His Argument

I agree.

[mak3cats]

11. I'm sorry; don't you mean NUCULAR? Let's get it right!! (n/t)

[Donnachaidh]

12. put a ring of them around McCain's house

And let him shit himself when the alarm bells sound.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. And we'll leave the waste in your yard, right Senator? nt

[AndyTiedye]

15. We'll Be Out of Fuel For Them By The Time They Are Finished

[sbyte]

22. No waste, recycle spent fuel for the next generation of advanced plants

It is not nuclear waste, it is a resource to be reused in Breeder Reactors after being repossessed.(with safty issuses and policy's in place) Nuclear may be good for big city's but in more rural areas the alternatives of wind, water, sun and methane may be enough.

But then again, this new technology of Blacklight Power, http://www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml, if it is real... would be the best path to take

[AndyTiedye]

38. Hello, Mr. Plutonium

Hello - how do you do -
I’m Mr. Plutonium. Can I spend the night?
I kind of need a place to crash and this place looks all right.
It’s quite a site, so I just might settle down and stay
Two hundred and fifty thousand years - and then I’ll go away.
I’m Mr. Plutonium, Mr. Plutonium - I’m lookin’ for a home.
”But everywhere he went, they booed. They hissed.
The people were angry. The people were pissed.
“Go away”, they said. “Go away”, they said.
“Hey hey, Mr. Plutonium - go, go, go, go away.
”But Mr. P. was undeterred.
He traveled ‘round. He spread the word‘
Til one day up jumped a clump from Pennsylvania; then a clump from Alabama
joined him too.
And the fission kept on fizzing in Vermont and Colorado, and the clumps were
clumped together, and they grew.
And they grew.
And they grew and they grew.
And soon there were twenty. And soon twenty five.
(But you don’t have to worry - ha! - you’re still alive.)
And oh the clumps collected, and oh how they grew.
(Forty …. Fifty …. Sixty …. And it’s all been done for you!)

“Hello - how do you do - I’m Mr. Plu-….”
“Hello - how do you do. Just call me Mr. P.”
“I don’t believe I’ve made your acquaintance - Plutonium’s the name.”
“That’s a capital P there. Glad to meet ya.”
“Hello - how do you do. Guess who!”

“Hello - how do you do. We’re Mr. Plutonium! Mr. Plutonium!
We want to live in your backyard!!”

[sbyte]

40. Hey, did you write that?

What's the melody?

[AndyTiedye]

49. I Have Been Unable to Find Out Who Wrote It

It does have a melody, I heard it on the radio once.

[sofa king]

41. Randell Mills is a con artist.

It looks to me as if he's pulling a scam in the same fashion as Paul Moller has with his bullshit flying cars (which ought to be ready Real Soon Now, forty years after he first started suckering people).

Engineers and scientists want to see the data and the demonstration of the theory; suckers are placated by personality and being told what they want to hear. Clearly, Randell Mills is targeting the suckers while keeping the scientists and engineers at bay by producing a massive theoretical tome few reputable scientists want to waste their time iwth.

One reviewer of Mills' work was surprised to discover portions of his theory to be well put together. It turned out those were the parts Mills plagiarized!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills

[MadHound]

54. Even if you recycled every single bit of fuel rods

You would still have tons and tons of hot, radioactive waste to deal with. Everything from paper swipes used for inspections to activated host cans to tools to gee, the decommissioned containment structure itself.

I used to work at a nuclear reactor. By far and away, the largest amount of radioactive waste wasn't from the fuel rods, but rather the detritus of keeping an operating plant going.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

21. Hey McBush!! Where are you gonna get the money?

:retard:

[conspirator]

83. He can ask his Federal Reserve buddies to print it? n/t

[goforit]

23. And with earthquakes delivered from HAARP....Lets just shake & bake the Earth

[hadrons]

24. With cost overuns, a nuclear plant cost about $7 BILLION ....

Anyone expect private companies to build ONE much less 45???

Besides, isn't the material in nuclear fission a natural resource like oil and wouldn't we have the same problems with it not to mention the watse, dangers, etc

[Pavulon]

28. Breeder reactors negate that and westinghouse would disagree..the navy

operates many reactors, they are a few dollars shy of 7billion.

[NutmegYankee]

37. Hell, the Newest Nuclear Subs are only $2 Billion.

And that is with reactor plant and all. The cost has risen greatly due to the inflation in metals.

[MadHound]

55. You're trying to compare apples and oranges

Not only are the nuke reactors onboard a sub smaller, but the armed services get to lower costs via foregoing various safety procedures(such as having to physically locate a plant in a safe, stable area).

They're talking about putting another nuclear plant close by where I live, and Ameren UE is estimating the costs to run at 8 billion dollars.

[Pavulon]

57. Not here, in NC

the cost to expand our facility is much less. And we get more cheap power to pull facilities and jobs from the so cal area.
7cents a KW/h

[MadHound]

61. And how much of the real price of those plants subsidized by fed, state and local governments?

Nukes are heavily subsidized by various government, and some subsidize more than others. It would be nice to level the playing field and either take away all nuclear subsidies, or subsidize the clean renewables in the same way the nuclear and fossil fuel sectors are.

[NutmegYankee]

69. "Forgoing safety procedures" NOT NAVAL REACTORS!

Sorry, but Naval reactors has far stricter requirements on the use of nuclear power and the challenges of shipboard use are much harder to design for than on land. Yes, the land costs more, and yes, the reactors are larger, but the building construction is simpler and the equipment isn't constrained as much by space.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 1/4 of that $8 Billion is from lawsuits.

[MasonJar]

25. NO!!!!!! There is still no legitimate way to get rid of the waste. That

is a way to not only ruin the planet for man, but also for every living animal and plant. NOOOOOOOO!

[Pavulon]

29. We nuked nevada, 90 miles from vegas, ever been?

just bury it there..They have a long history of being screwed by the doe.

[Lorentz]

65. How will we ruin the planet? Do you even understand what you're raving about?

Or were you just told by the left-wing lunatic fringe that "nuclear = bad"?

[Codeine]

78. Sure there is.

You put it in lead-lined casks and you bury deep in stable, solid rock (deep final repositories) well away from water. End of discussion, except for the hysterical retard crowd.

[Carnea]

91. Hell bury it at Chernobyl. nt

[Historic NY]

26. How many for his home state and his area of residence.

[superconnected]

31. In other words he's backed by the energy companies

yeah, I trust the enrons of america, NOT.

[Jack_DeLeon]

39. We need nuclear power to help ease the transition off of oil, wish more Democrats would support it

but it seems too many are afraid of them, and would rather risk the potential mass starvation and societal collapse when we start getting oil shortages and we wont have enough electricity on our current infrastructure to power the electric vehicles and other things we will need in the future to fill the gaps left by not having oil.

I'm all for solar and wind power, if I could afford it I would have them, but only the rich can afford them right now and there isnt much chance we can deploy them in the scale we would need to even compare with a couple of nuclear power plants.

[Mudoria]

43. Someone should mention that the French rely

heavily on nuclear power and reprocess the waste. Seems to work pretty well there.

[Kolesar]

53. The French reprocess the uranium, but still have other nasty isotopes that they have to "store"

It is not as if they "burn up" the remaining radioactivity in another reactor.

[harun]

51. I am for them (n/t)

[Jersey Ginny]

97. Yes, we need them. The biggest crisis is global climate change.

We need to first conserve and we can and should be doing a lot more of that, and secondly develop energy sources that do not contribute to climate change.

[Joe Bacon]

42. Send all the waste to Crawford, Texas.

A fitting monument to their most famous resident!

[Ian David]

44. I'm 100% in favor of nuclear plants so long as they are privately insured...

... and all of them are within the Congressional Districts of those who vote to approve them.

I'm also in favor of storing nuclear waste as close to Harry Reid as possible, on the off chance he might mutate and grow something for the first time that approximates a pair of balls.

[truthisfreedom]

45. It's time for Obama to announce what HE Urges Building! McNuke has made his plans clear.

McNuke wants more radiation. What does Obama want?

[Javaman]

47. How about just the basics?

What becomes of the tillings? How about the obvious waste?

mclame is just that.

[gasperc]

50. nice slogan, I want to build a nuclear power plant in Your state

I'm sure it will sell well from coast to coast

[MadHound]

58. Another stupid idea from McCain

Until we figure out two things, how to safely and permanently get rid of all the waste from a nuclear plant and how to make them one hundred percent proof against human error, then we shouldn't build nukes. Besides, we have more than enough potential energy in solar, wind and other clean renewables to fully power our energy infrastructure, we just need to utilize them. A good step towards that would be to start giving clean renewable energy alternatives the same sort of subsidies that we're currently giving to nuclear and fossil fuels.

[crawfish]

68. Well...now he's right on ONE topic.

I hope Obama doesn't get scared off of this by the moronic anti-nuke group, who don't realize that nuclear power is the greenest power available to us right now (in the massive quantities we need).

[KamaAina]

72. And how many of these would be built in swing states?

I'm guessing 44 or so would be in soild Blue states. :eyes:

[hatrack]

75. Sure, no problem - shouldn't cost much more than, oh, half a trillion or so . . .

Rotsa ruck, Senator McPander.

[newspeak]

76. doesn't Cheney also have a vested interest in nuke facilities?

I'm in Nevada and we don't want anyones toxic crap!!!! I lived in Northern California for years--they built a nuclear boondoggle near Eureka CA--EUREKA is one of the most seismic areas in California--had to shut it down--but someone made a killing!!! Rancho Seco they shut down--morons or greedy MFers build nuclear plants where there is extreme seismic activity. Since Nevada rates third for seismic activity, why would you think we'd want everyone's waste here? I have relatives who worked at the test site when they were doing above ground testing--the ones that really got hit were situated in Southern Utah--I have friends whose families lived in that area during the tests with thyroid problems and cancer--one friend's mother died of a childhood type of leukemia-her whole class would go out and watch the mushroom cloud in Beaver UT--most wound up with cancer.

Yucca has a water table and we are seismically active--no way do I want anybody's shite in my backyard. The Ute Indian Reservation made a deal for a waste dump on their reservation in Utah-they promised them jobs and the money that was going to flow in--it was only going to be material that could be recycled--NOT--they've been screwed!!! Trucks from all over the country were not only bringing in radioactive material but heavy metals like mercury. Once Pandora's Box is opened, you can't close it. And, talk about those containers-a driver who hauls that shit, now has cancer-it would get so hot in the older truck cabs (no air conditioning) and she'd open a window. Unless you can recycle every part of the material at the nuclear site, I'm not buying.

[toopers]

81. Doesn't France get roughly 80% of their electrical power . . .

from nuclear power plants located within the border of their country. I have to believe that if they are willing to take that risk it must be a safe alternative.

[newspeak]

86. and where are you going to store the waste?

where does France store their waste? I don't want it in my backyard. And, the way certain no-bid corporations have been working-weak regulations-I don't even have faith in their ability to keep the public safe. In my environmental science class, I argued for more localized means of energy. By being more localized, it also helps for security reasons--an attack wouldn't shut down whole areas. On the West and East coasts wave technology, solar ponds, solar cells and wind generation. Parts of the midwest, wind generation and smaller dams could be utilized. Israel has solar ponds--a solar pond can energize a town. It's time to think outside the box. What I do know, that we are falling behind on innovation because of the same greedy oil interests, that would see a shortage for more gain--to exploit oil to the last drop.

[riverdeep]

88. I can't believe I'm agreeing with McCain, but maybe a stopped watch is right twice a day.

This is one area where I admit the progressive left got it really wrong. If we had built more reactors back when we had a chance, along with other forward thinking actions like investing in alternative and promoting conservation and putting the environmental cost into products upfront and encouraging small families and going small and local and diversified instead of big and monoculture and a general outlook of working with nature instead of looking at it as something to be tamed (all areas that the centrists and conservatives got really wrong), our current energy woes would be significantly less.

Are there problems and risks with nuclear energy? Absolutely. And we need to do everything we can to minimize and deal with those risks. But oil refineries blow up. Coal mines collapse. Hydrogen has the potential to be highly explosive. There are no energy solutions that come without risk. Some are riskier than others. Nuclear has come a long way from the '70s. If properly built and maintained, it's safer and more reliable than it ever was. As has been mentioned, France gets approximately 75% of it's energy from nuclear. In fact, they are the world's largest exporter of electricity, yielding them about 4.7 billion dollars.

There is not going to be one magic bullet that will solve our energy situation. It will be an amalgam of solutions. And nuclear should definitely be one of them while we transition into other energy solutions, which will not happen anytime soon. We are behind the eight ball, let's not make things worse and compound our past mistakes.

[viat0r]

94. I would support this if.........

The nuclear waste was to be buried under the homes of Mr Mccain and his family and Their ancestors for the life of these plants.

[fascisthunter]

102. Nuke ENergy is another Boondoggle that is Wasteful and Dangerous

so much so it should never be considered. We already been down that stupid road. Nice try energy lobbyists... I'm sure we'll be hearing from your parrots much more during this election cycle, just as the internet experienced during the misleading "death tax" propaganda campaign, paid by billionaires and the GOP, the billionaire political party.

[DuaneBidoux]

104. As long as he announces what state gets the waste beforehand.