Nuke Here. Nuke Now. Pay Less.

Written by Paul Zannucci on 11:33 AM

Yesterday John McCain continued to lay out an aggressive energy plan by calling for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. From the MyWay article we read:

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

It goes on to say that the longer term goal would be to add an additional 55 reactors.

For reasons only a Democrat could give, this country lags far behind the developed world in nuclear power, despite how clean and efficient nuclear energy is. I'm sure that baby Alex's mother is out there somewhere worried about a core meltdown or what is going to happen with all the waste, but all of these issues are nothing more than liberal talking points. Nuclear, today, is truly a safe option, and while we've heard of poorly stored waste, that, too, is an issue that is easily addressed.

Unfortunately, thanks to liberal stonewalling, even this will take some work, though. Much like we haven't found any new sources of oil or built any new refineries in ages, we haven't taken a serious look at nuclear technology in some time.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," (McCain) conceded.

Thanks, Democrats.

Related Posts by Categories

Widget by Hoctro | Jack Book
  1. 4 comments: Responses to “ Nuke Here. Nuke Now. Pay Less. ”

  2. By mike on July 13, 2008 at 6:29 PM

    Republicans are simply enamored with the quote, "an issue that is easily addressed." Why then, are the issues of waste disposal not issues of the past. Find a feasible solution, by working concomitantly with Democrats. In the intervening time, perhaps you should work on your comma usage.

  3. By Paul Zannucci on July 14, 2008 at 8:59 AM

    Issues of waste disposal are not easily addressed because of liberal stonewalling.

  4. By mike on July 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

    Thank you Mr. Zannucci; however, I can read. Can you personaly offer some hypothetical ideas, if the "liberal stonewalling" was no object?

  5. By Paul Zannucci on July 14, 2008 at 8:18 PM

    First of all, here in Oak Ridge, TN, we carry nuclear waste around in sealed containers in trucks and store them temporarily in concrete bunkers--every day. No one has ever had a problem with it.

    Second, we've spent well over $1 billion creating a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain that could contain about 30 times the amount of nuclear waste currently existing over the entire world.

    What is the primary hold up to Yucca Mountain, which is a perfectly safe holding place? Well, besides the not in my back yard group, environmentalists are worried about what will happen 10,000 years from now, the length of time the facility is expected to last.

    That's 10,000 years. Don't you think we might have time to worry about that later? We might even have a new trick or two up our sleaves by then.

    Some day soon, say 50 years from now, it will likely be cheap enough just to shoot the nuclear material into space and out into the endless void. Before you have a cow over that, we already do it with great regularity. It's just not cost efficient as a means of waste disposal yet.