More expensive? More risky? Yeah, let's do it!

Idiots.

Nuclear waste is nearly impossible to "throw away". Unless we jettison it into space, it is always with us. Nuclear waste contaminates everything it touches. More reactors mean more waste, and will only compound the existing problem. Has McCain proposed where to store the waste? No one wants it, not Nevada, not Utah, not Wyoming or Idaho, not Arizona where McCain hails from, now any other state. Many states won't even allow it to be transported across their borders.

Oh, and nuclear waste kills. It fundamentally changes the nature of the molecules that are contacted by it. Radiation particles knock pieces out of adjacent molecules, causing them to become free radicals, which can then knock pieces out of molecules adjacent to them, in an unending chain reaction. Irradiated organic systems break down because their cells are irreparably damaged and contaminate even new cells as they are formed. Even inorganic non-nuclear items have the potential to become contaminated and contaminate other things in turn. The ability to contaminate doesn't decline with the number of items the nuclear or non-nuclear irradiated material touches. So, metal and concrete storage tanks, plastic and metal observation cameras, accidentally irradiated ground water and soil, even the air surrounding nuclear material are contaminated by it, essentially forever (thousands of lifetimes), and can contaminate other things in turn.

McCain's arguments for nuclear bank on the ignorance of the average American about what is at stake in relying on it. Romney says only left-wing environmentalist extremists don't want nuclear. But that is bogus. Nuclear can only work if there is a clear plan for waste disposal, which is the concern that has prevented new facility construction over the past 30 years. No one has been able to find a place to put it! Everyone wants unlimited power, but they all want the waste to go in someone else's backyard.

There is no safety risk.
Bulid breeder reactors like the French to minimize waste.
Best energy source ever.
I'm a democrat and I think they have their energy policy all wrong.

I noticed your math calcualtions did not include the cost of windmills or number of windmills required to equal the power of 1 nuclear power plant. In addition, I didnt see a plan for when the wind does not blow to turn all those windmills — better invest in candle stocks.

Voice of reason:
What happens when the wind does not blow? I guess you can sit in the dark with your candle and work new math problems or come up with new Mcsomething names…

The waste will be around for MILLIONS OF YEARS.

McLAME will die of OLD AGE in less than 10.

Do the math people.

No nuclear plants, if McCain is in office..please….no.

Wow. Just did more reading… McCain calls nuclear power, "…efficient and inexpensive…"? Nuclear poewr (at the best of times) costs us about 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind energy (after istallation) costs about 1 cent per kilowatt hour.

It takes about 6-8 Billion dollars to build a new Nuclear plant. Splitting the diff at 7B, let's see… that's $315Billion to build 45 plants. That same money if applied at producing wind power at the cost of around $1200 per installed Kilowatt would create 262,500,000 kilowatts of power for the grid…

That is 262 GigaWatts of power capacity.
at 1/7th the production cost.
with no uranium mining or refining involved.
no security or terrorism risks
no Yucca mountain (go google THAT one… have fun!)

McCain's plan only shows an inability to see past the party line, and do the math. This is the 'tire pressure guage' thing all over again but at a much bigger scale (maintaining your tire pressure will reduce America's fuel woes 2-3 times more than all of McCain's proposed offshore drilling).

Wake up and think, America!

If there is method that France has used that has worked, then it should be explored. I would not automatically say we need any set number, like 45, until we look at all our options, including solar and wind.

But, waste disposal is tricky. The last location I heard about was in Nevada, next to the Colorado River. Not smart. This part has to be tightly, tightly regulated because we sure cannot trust a utility with an Enron mentality to do the right thing. Maybe that is why it works better in France.

NIMBY

Nuclear waste can be reprocessed, which greatly reduces it. France does this…to the best of my knowledge, we currently do not.

To all you you who support nuclear power:

Please respond with your zip code, so we can find 45 communities that want to host these plants. I am not completely opposed to nuclear, but already live too close to Indian Point for comfort.

I suppose we are going to ship the spent fuel rods all the way to Yucca mountain from wherever the plants are?

So let's start the list of sites:
Crawford, TX
Kennebunkport, ME
McCain house #1 town
McCain house #2 town
McCain house #3 town
McCain house #4 town
McCain house #5 town
McCain house #6 town
McCain house #7 town
McCain house #8 town
Cheney hometown
Cheney current town
Cheney vacation house town

I remember WPPSS back in the day. (go google it or look it up in the Wikipedia) The risks here arent risks of the Three-Mile_island sort, They are more of the Enron sort.

WPPSS was a project to build several Nuclear power plants in Washington State. It was (not coincidentally) the LAST time anyone tried to build a Nuclear power plant in the US… Why? Because they werent financially viable - even with the huge amounts of cash Uncle Sam poured into them. The largest bond default in history… Does this ring any bells?

That was the Fiasco when we tried to build 2 or 3 plants back in the 80s when environmental regulations werent even as strict as they are today. 45 plants ?!?! Can you imagine? You thought Enron was bad? You thought the dot-com bubble burst was bad? You thought the Home-Mortgage crisis was bad?

Maybe we could use T Boone Pickens as a body-double for McCain and nobody would notice…

In 1979 Tree mile island came within 1 hour of total melt down. Had it melted down it would have killed tens of thousands of people and created a 40 mile radius no-man land that would be uninhabitable of hundreds of years.
The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants today will still be lethal in 250,000 years.
Nuclear power is extremely short sighted and very foolish.

PS.
they also make great targets for terrorists!

McGeezer brags about being on a Nuclear Submarine. Now in the news we see the Nuclear Sub that has travelled the World leaking Radio Active Fuel everywhere it went. Put your glow in the dark foot in your mouth McBush

Another stupid and old fashioned McOld idea. The man is so so lost in the 70's. We can use clean coal , wind and solar to provide our electricity. We do not have to glow in the dark or have babies with two heads to have an electric supply.

Nuclear power, the new big oil?

No thanks. where does the waste go? how do we contain a leak?

I’m so nervous I misspelled backyard.

Lets build the first one in Arizona if he is so sure this stuff is safe. And I think there is plenty of room in Arizona to dispose of all the resulting waste as well. I think we should store it right next to Sedona…..

Not in my backyard! Not in my backayr!

Wind and solar are important sources of energy but they CANNOT provide base load electrical power. The green freaks will not be happy until were living in caves and the only light we have comes from candles.I would love a nuclear power plant in my backyard. They pay good wgaes……Oh wait I already have one in my backyard oh no I better panic and run I might glow ha ha ha ha I hope all you NIMBYS enjoy five dollar gasoline and higher because thats where its heading. Oh and to the liberal tree huggers who claim that this is all big business and lobbying that are behind nuclear power promotion, why do "progressive" nations like Japan and France get over 50% of their power from nuclear and not have issues like we do in the US?

McCain thinks that American's are as STUPID as he.

Why would we support NUCLEAR POWER, WHEN WE DON'T PROTECT OUR BOARDERS…OR…INSPECT PRODUCT'S THAT ""FREE TRADE"" IS ALLOWED TO THREATEN OUR CITIZENS.

THIS IS A NO-BRAINER!!!

Hmmm, what do you think the chances are of McCain allowing a nuclear power plant to be built right by his neighborhood in Arizona? Probably pretty slim, methinks.

How gullible are Americans to be fooled twice….McCain= empty suit.

McCain is such an idiot!!!!
He would put America at risk in order to get elected.
Hero no more!!!!

I am all for it. lets put one in McCain's backyard, ten in Texas, two at Hannity's backyard and 4 in WY, 4 in UT and the rest in all the red states

The Chernobyl disaster left a ghost town area twenty years ago and Three mile island in Pennsylvania were awful wake up calls… we are unable to solve where to put the ongoing toxic waste… Lets focus on sustainable clean energy 100% in 10 years!!! Smart, healthy power.

Where is Mc Cain going to store this waste … Are any of you Mc Cain Supporters willing to have it stored at your residence …???

RENEWABLE ENERGY PEOPLE!

check out articles on Rockport, MO, small towns are already utilizing it!

Nuclear energy right now is the best choices. so many nuclear plants which most of them are built during 1970s -1980s. Is there any big accident? Solar energy, or wind energy are limited by geographical conditions. eg. At night , solar engergy plant can't work.
If people have the basic science knowledge, you will know that at present conditions, nuclear energy is the best choice.
who are talking about nuclear energy is dangerous, i have to say : everything is dangerous, everyday the food you eat containning a lot of bacteria, but you are still alive? Nuclear energy plant must be built very carefully, and the waste is not that much, and also stored in a special way. It's safe and green energy.
Stupid people without basic knowlege is just against it.

STUPID we live in 2008. It is very dangerous, do your homework or read some. There are many other options available. Nothing will get done until there's a give and take in voting! Try that approach! Instead of trying to blow us up!!!

As for McCain’s very expensive, long long term & dangerous Nuclear Reactors: First, they mentioned there was once a leak at the other closed Nuclear Plant McCain went to. Then there was information on a Nuclear Sub that leaked not too long ago. Even France has reported 2 Nuclear spills last month!!! One of the spills leaked into 2 rivers!!!! Care to go for a swim?

So does anyone want to volunteer we build one of these in their backyard? Can we say 3 mile island!!! NOW THAT IS SCARY!!!

Yes, oil prices have increased but let’s use our brain!!!

WHERE IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOING TO PUT TEN OF MILLION AND MILLION OF WINDMILL AT? LET ME GUESS IS NOT GOING TO BE IN HIS BACK YARD OR ANYBODY ELSE BACK YARD FOR SURE. OBOMBMA IS WAY TO RISKY FOR MOST OF AMERICAN PEOPLE.
========
MCCAIN 08!
HILLARY 12!

…why not tie a few of those nuclear subs and carriers up in a dry-dock and use their nuclear plants to power the local grid for a while and see what happens.

McCain continues to give valid ideas for energy alternatives, yet all the Obamanauts do is say no to everything.

Where is all this hope and change I keep hearing about???

What is his plan for paying for these nuclear plants. And how is he going to dispose of the waste. It is time for a real journalist too start asking him serious questions. They allow this man too say whatever he wants too say and there are no serious follow-up questions.

higher prices? risky enviromental effects?………..yeah, sounds like a great idea.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AN ENERGY PLAN IS HAVE MORE TIRE GAUAGE. Soooooo funny!
======================
MCCAIN 08!
HILLARY 12!

Hussein Obama energy plan is to have more tax, more windmill everywhere and more tire gauge. Wow!.
============================
MCCAIN 08!
HILLARY 12!
============
CNN=BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA #1 HEADQUARTER.

Has anyone here looked at thorium fuel.
I read that it is non proliferative.
It cuts the nuclear waste product by 50-70%.
It is far safer than uranium.

Anyway, I´m skeptical of nuclear energy, but I think thorium would be a responsible option for future nuclear power considerations. A great compromise.

By the way people, Arizona already has one of the world's largest Nuclear Power Plants. It is called the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. If it is not the largest in the world I am pretty sure it is in the top ten. It has been there for more than 20 years.

I have a suggestion for all of John McCain's NUCLEAR POWER SUPPORTERS.

It seems only right that all of McCain's supporters, should have one of these nuclear plants built in their STATE/BACKYARD, and this INCLUDES JOHN McCAIN's backyard! John McCain has stated that he wants to build 45 nuclear plants, so there should be more than enough to go around!

Did anyone hear, just today, that a number of nuclear sub-marines are now LEAKING?

We could build all these nuclear plants, and send the waste down to AZ, where he could have a good waste receptacle on his ranch. I bet he would NIMBY so fast, your head would spin. If we can't do it safely and have a good solid waste policy, I say no. What is wrong with a safe-based policy for nuclear energy, included in all the alternative energies and possibilities? get over the offshore drilling, the nuclear and look towards wind power, wave power, solar, algae for biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and plug in cars. There is an endless amount of wasted power in this world. That is renewable and safe.

Nuclear can be safe. Right now nuclear energy supplies virtually all the power in France…..and most of the power in Sweden.

It seems we're almost the only ones left who are willing to sell our souls to Middle Eastern countries for their oil, just so we can run our country.

Was for Hillary….now McCain 2008!

Someone in this comment log said: "Senator McCain is for a completely comprehensive energy plan. He won't waffle with the wind! "

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE CEO OF AN OIL CORPORATION.
Go ahead, ridicule what is safe and saves Americans money- we know that your priority is money over life - All life.

I love these GOP staffers always insulting Americans by calling us liberals. Shame on you, I am an American and proud of it. Too bad I wanted to go to college and become a lawyer and not join the military. Am I a bad person for it???? Am I a liberal because I want my kids to have the best of everything??? Am I a liberal because i dontwant the US to become like Beijing with their smog?? Call me weak and see how quick I am to throw a punch. Staffers are a bunch of sissies.

Based on poll data, I am relieved that the knuckleheads on this comment board are not representative of the voting public.

You hate relying on foreign oil, you hate coal, you hate nuclear and you hate high fuel prices and a dying economy.

Wind, solar, free healthcare, jawing with terrorists, retreating from war zones, and on and on. Even Obama knows this is whacko talk. That's why he is changing his tune. This stuff is a turn-off.

This is not comment worthy.

Nuclear anything is not a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poison the earth more Mr Mc anti environment

Why nuclear power? Why not solar and wind, sources of renewable energy that are much safer and cleaner! Start building houses and businesses with solar panels, put solar panels on existing structures, work on solar technology for vehicles! Build wind farms! Nuclear waste will have to be stored for centuries. Better make sure the power and storage plants are well far away from any earthquake fault lines!

So, how does he propose fitting 45 nuclear plants in a single county? I mean, sure, Pecos County here in Texas is kind of big and far from everything…

Man, why does everybody in this stupid country have to be against everything their "enemy" is against and for everything their candidate is for?

I'm voting democrat this year, like I have for the last 12 years, but…

Nuclear: safe, efficient, cheap.

Some waste, yes, but you're really going to tell me that you think burying a couple thousand pounds of metal in the desert is worse than burning eighty bajillion tons of coal a year?

Please. We should all move to electric cars and power them with nuclear plants. Dependence on foreign oil solved, greenhouse emissions problem solved. Enough fuel to last billions of years and enough storage space for the waste to last millions of years.

Seriously, it's like you all hear that McCain is for something and you all have this knee-jerk reaction that it's probably wrong. I guess I can't blame you… that was a pretty reliable test with Bush around, but McCain's not all evil/dumb.

While I am no McCain fan I have to say that more Nuclear is not a bad Idea under one condition!! That being that we reprocess spent nuclear fuel!! This will greatly decrease demand for Uranium and nuclear waste. While increasing the use we get out of already purchased Nuclear fuel.

For those who say we can get the energy we need from things like solar and wind I would remind you that electricy cannot be stored!! At best it can be converted into something else which maybe stored but there are always loss in converting to and converting back (A battery uses electricity to reverse a chemical reaction. When energy is drawn from the battery that chemical reaction that was reversed takes place again and gives off electricity). So unless people only want to turn their lights on when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining they are going to need to invest in something such as Coal or Nuclear.

Will all that radio-active waste material be buried in Arizona?

Boy, CNN really attracts some educated people.

A. If you read the whole story, you'd see that the the added expense is a whopping penny or two more per KWH than what you pay for fossil fuel based power. AND, that money goes to…drum roll…American companies, not the monarchy of Saudi Arabia.

B. All the waste produced by ALL of our nuclear power plants since they were first built would take up an area the size of a football field. Meanwhile, fossil fuel based power plants poor tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global warming, anyone?

C. As others have pointed out, some European nations have been operating a multitude of nuclear power plants safely and efficiently for years. The technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island kids.

Oh, and for the treehuggers that spout solar and wind energy. There isn't enough square footage in this country for the number of panels and wind generators it would take to power this nation. Is it a good supplement to other power sources? Sure. But I'd rather see 200 nuclear power plants than 25 million windmills blocking out every ounce of scenery in this country.

Trying reading something other than Paris Hilton's web blog people.

McSurge knows all about Nuclear Power, he was stationed on a Nuclear Airplane/Aircraft Carrier. I once rode a train and I know all about Locomotive engines and I've been on Nuclear vessels while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps and I too know all about Nuclear power.
McSurge, you were a pilot and you have absolutely no knowledge of what makes a nuclear Aircraft Carrier tick. That would be former President Jimmy Carter, he helped design the U.S. navy's first Nuclear vessel. Remember Jimmy Carter the person that you belittled a few weeks ago, he was considered one of the brightest officers in the Navy and you were considered one of the dumbest.
Stop ling, you know nothing about Nuclear Power you didn't even really understand Jet Engines.

tisk, tisk, build 45 nuclear power plants and my children may be born with gills and tentacles…

These things do not pollute??? The just what is the smoke coming out of those two towers? Are you people blind?

Nuclear energy has been a valuable resource for decades now. How many accidents of any significance have you heard about? When the folks in California's central valley had energy supplied by the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant they had very affordable energy. Then the "educated" people were duped into thinking it wasn't safe and voted to close it down. Now they're paying through their rear ends for borrowed energy. Risky? Maybe, but how many lottery tickets have you thrown away taking risks?

If we reprocess the nuclear waste, the amount generated will be small–far less than the radioactive slag piles outside of a typical coal powered plant. An amount that will easily fit into Yucca Mountain with a much shorter holding period needed than the current once-through plan. Nuclear plants run 24/7, even at night and when the wind doesn't blow. We have enough nuclear fuel with reprocessing to supply the world's projected power needs for 400 years or more. Enough time to develop viable alternative energy.
I'd be happy to live near a nuclear power plant, especially if they offered free hot water to heat my home in the winter (heat is a by-product of all fuel based power plants). Radiation exposure is far higher living in Colorado (natural background) than living near a nuclear power plant (negligible).

WHERE TO WE DISPOSE OF THE WASTE, MCCAIN???????????????

That's the scary part of Nuclear power! With all the cancer the nuclear tests on the 40's and 50's have caused in the Southwest and Western regions of our Nation…………..which state will allow NUCLEAR WASTE?

I like T. Boone Picken's plan, (and Sen. Obama agrees with him). Let's use the resources we ALREADY HAVE ….NATURAL GAS, wind power!

Please let's be careful about Nuclear Energy…..ITS DANGEROUS FOR US ALL.

WHAT QUALIFICATIONS DOES MCCAIN HAVE???

I mean educational qualifications.What college did he attend?What degree does he have?What books has he written by himself not by other authors?what exactly qualifies to him be Commander-in-Chief?

I am not asking about POW.That is not a qualification,it is was his job and what happened happened.

Thanks!

CNN ask McSurge to name the potential locations for his 45 Nuclear Plants. He will never do it because he knows that no one wants them in their neighborhood. CNN you are so busy reporting on nothing that you miss the real news.
Fire that Idiot Rowland Martin, he wouldn't isn't worth two dead flies as a journalist.

This is just another reason we, the American people, can't afford to put McIdiot in office….

McCain is a joke !!!

Meanwhile, Obama doesn't want Nuke power, oil, coal, or anything else for that matter.

Nuclear is the way to go.

It's the cheapest, and safest. Europe is far ahead of us when it comes to this.

McCain for a better America '08!!

Of course it is risky but the old fool is 72 years old. What does he care ?

also technology exists to reenrich the majority of spent nuclear fuel and turn it back into usable nuclear fuel.

nuclear is the best option for our main energy needs

All the media does is try to sell your idea to the American people forgetting that we have so many informed voters out there. The media can try to sell your idea to those who are not independent thinkers but not those who are know the consequences of your proposal. When Obama made a comment about inflating tires, except for Count Down with Keith Olberman the media didn't pick up on it until Obama mocked McCain about his ignorant on the issue. But if the situation were reversed we wouldn't have heard the end of it.

To answer "Southerner's" question, there are ~400 operating nuclear reactors worldwide. 2 have melted down, and there have been ~10 other non-catastrophic problems. That's a one-in-200 chance of a meltdown, and a nearly 2.5% chance of a significant problem… There might be a reason for those liberals to be a little concerned.

I myself think the safety issues are not a worry, but the economic considerations should be. There are completely safe, renewable options that cost as much as 1/4th the amount/kWh as nuclear (wind). That's a better way to go.

Funny, I heard an expert on NPR the other day that said "not doable, impossible". His timetable is off and he is off his rocker.

Obama '08

When they figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods and have identified a plan to protect nearby residents in case of accident, I'll go along with nuclear energy. Until then, it's too dangerous.

I'm not against nuclear power per say.. but I just want to know his plans as far as discarding all the extra nuclear waste… and let the people of the communities where this waste will be stored make the ultimate decision.

Is McCain starting to remind anyone else of Montgomery Burns?

WHAT IS RISKY IS EVER PUTTING ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

GOD HELP US ALL IF THAT EVER HAPPENS!

The largest nuclear power plant accident was in Chernobyl, Russia
Since Russia is so secretive it is unclear how many deaths resulted.
They say 56 (47 workers + 9 children of Thyroid cancer. 336,000
people were evacuated and resettled. An estimated 4,000 cancer cases among the 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the
6 million living nearby. Steve would you care to store the "clean" nuclear waste near your house?

Not in my back yard. Not for my grandchildren.
McCain just doesn't have a clue.

Reprocess-recycle nuclear waste!

"If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%."

didn't you hear he wants to put the waste in the non-existent Nevada storage site and use some to make depleated uranium military hardware.

Nuclear waste is nolonger Toxic, it's safe and clean and cheap.

McCain opposes moving waste through Arizona.

If he doesn't want it at home, who should deal with it o his behalf?

I'm certainly open to the discussion, but correct me if I'm wrong aren't we currently struggling on whether or not we can store existing nuclear waste anywhere, "Yucca Mountain". You can't just throw out a convenient number without having thought through the details and looking at the impact.

Of course liberals are against this. It's McCain's plan. I'm counting down to the day when Obama proposes the very same thing, and liberals will hail it as a 'reasonable, visionary plan.' That's what Obama and his supporters did with off-shore drilling. It's what they will do with nuclear power as well.

any one remember 3 mile Island?

I believe they're still fighting over where to put the nuclear waste from the plants we currently have. No one wants the storage near them as well as tranporting it through their area. Also, remember Chernoble and the almost disaster in 3 Mile Island? Can he for once not shoot from the hip and give some details? No……he has none.

All those in favor, send McCain your name and address so he will know where to build a nuclear plant.

Oh, that's right. It's fine UNLESS they want to build it in my back yard.

Republican take pride in electing people with no brains as President!

Not this time

Obama '08

Sure John, as long as we can bury the waste at one of your MANY mansions!

WHY is MCSAME is always talking about nuclear and the war he is just like Bush people is losen jobs, homes, healthcare it sad to see MCSAME always discussing issue like warhead instead of talking about bringing American back together. WE are having register to vote drive in Georgia to turn Georgia blue MCSAME and Bush got to go no more crying American. Let vote for Obama.

Obama Georgia 08

Nuclear power plants have been directly responsible for the death of a few thousand people worldwide through history. (see Chernobil) Coal power, which the US relies on mostly, is responsible for dozens of direct deaths, as well as thousands of new cases of 'black lung' and hugely shortened life-spans each year! Surely, nuclear power is a step forward!

Cut off your nose to spite your face much?

While nuke power is cleaner, it carries too much baggage that someone is going to have to deal with.

Cost is enormous. Construction, maintenance, storage, security — decades worth of security and maintenance. More for the waste. It (the waste) is relatively small and easily contained, but it takes 100's of years for it to become disposable.

So the real question her McCain is… who has run the numbers?

What is the real savings over a 20yr. period?

Oh yea, he won't be around that long to actually care what he is leaving the rest of us elitist Dr. No people to (once again) try to clean up the mess that the shortsighted corrupt GOP have left us.

Peace.

Only fools rush in.
Don`t you forget Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and a nice little place for the waste in your neighbourhood. And drilling without even having the refining capacity. Wake up folks and start to use your brain.

Over 50% of American's electricity is generated from coal and natural gas. Only 7% is generated from wind. If one really wants to "clean up" the environment, then nuclear is the only way to go.

Those who decry coal and oil need to ask themselves what the alternative is. Agnes? Perhaps you can turn off your heat and air-conditioning, begin walking or taking the bus, avoid cooking (no microwave ovens either).

In sum, if you don't want oil, don't want coal and don't want nuclear, then you are opting for a dramatic decrease in your standard of living.

There is nothing wrong with nuclear energy. over half of electricity in the UK and over 80% of the electricity in France are generated with nuclear power plants. And surely we haven't seen them grow a third arm off their back yet.

You guys are hilarious with your suggestions that McCain wouldn't build a nuclear power plant in Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona already HAS the largest nuclear power plant in the United States (Palo Verde) and yet no one is glowing

Where is the waste going to be stored properly isnt that dangerous i know lets store the waste in the back yards of his and cindys 5 homes!!!!!

for 7 years we control congress and we put $4 trillion into the debt, we were the non spenders, remember?. I think we need change in washington, and tha't why I can not let this to happen again, as long as i live I can't let my country to fail us, I have to stand up and fight, for that reason I'm giving my vote to Barack Hussein Obama.

Republican for Obama.

He's realistic, the world is growing and needs more oil. His plan will releive us from depending on foreign oil, I think we don't have a choice more nuclear energy is going to happen no matter who wins in Nov. execpt like the surge he's right again and Obama is not.

Nuke plants "can" be safe but the waste from them isn't. Until we settle that problem, we can't build anymore. So, Mr. McCain…where do we stash that much stuff with a half life of "eternity?" Huh?

Nice try but no cigar.

a poster wrote…If John McCain would start off by allowing a nuclear plant near his home in Arizona then I will take him seriously. <<<<

Ever heard of Palo Verde? It's the largest nuclear power plant in the United States and it's in Phoenix, Arizona. I guess you will take him seriously now, huh?

Come on people get up to date the radioactive material can be recycled and reused in modern plants. It's much more dangerous to work on an oil rig then in a nuc plant. That is a fact, unfortunately most of liberals are not interested in facts.

More french have died because of this, ask Bernard (city in fance)

We have a nuclear power plant and the employees actually pooled money to buy diamonds to radiate, which will cause diamonds to change color and fetch a big chunk of change. They chucked the diamonds in the reactor. Trouble is you can't touch them for several thousand years. This is the level of intelligence of employees running the plants. True story. No one can tell me nuclear plants are safe. The people running them are morons.

Simple, More power yes, more clean power, yes, more nuclear plants, sure, but before doing so, tell the american public where are this plants going to be located, tell the american public were the waste is going, or how to deal with it, remember,he could said 35 plants, or 100, he is just picking a number and setting a time, but wait, who is paying for this? the American public?, private enterprise? the french?,

continue….

Elizabeth from VA you have no idea what you are talking about!!!! They have never been safe, which is why we get paid alot more to do what we do because of its danger. The emissions are comparable to others as well.

It takes ~20,000,000 man-hours to produce a new nuclear facility. This is specialized, highly trained labor. Each nuke is (stupidly) individually designed and engineered, and then constructed on site… with most of the components being contructed on site.

This would hurt any project, but factor in the safety considerations of nuclear energy - and now you have to get 5000-10000 highly skilled workers to a remote site that is far removed from anywhere for 1-2 years.

Add to that the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel (both of which are inflating faster than oil - 10fold increase in price since 2002) - and you get a sense of exactly how much these things are going to cost in 4 years… about the time construction will begin on the first new nuke in America…

New nuclear energy is not competitive.

Period.

dont these plutonium rods have a life of 15 years? If thats the case why cant we at the end of the 15 yrs pile all of them onto a space shuttle and shoot them towards the sun?

Look.
Here's the problem as so many others have noted.
NUCLEAR WASTE.
NIMBY.

The ironic part is that proponents want to build the plants, then worry about it later where to put the waste. Opponents want to settle the waste issue first, then build the plants. The standoff has been stalled for decades now.

When does he start singing " Bomb Bomb the US? "

The waste can always be dumped in Iraq.

This is insane. We have no reasonable method of disposing of the waste, no one wants one in their state. If McCain wants them then put them in AZ and AZ needs to volunteer be a nulcear waste site. What about Solar and Wind. McCain has no viable energy plan. His ideas are as ancient as he is. Obama for a 21st Century Leader

Why is France using Nuclear for the overwhelming majority of their electricity?
I can't think of many other fine countries that are ecology driven than they are.
We've had nuclear submarines and ships on water for nearly 50 years with an unblemished safety record.

I don't want my children to be forced into horse and buggy by mega wealthy extremist environmentalists who would have the rest of us "eat cake." I want the FACTS about the technology, not the smoke screens and unfounded allegations, but I think I need to tune to _ _ _ News for that (not CNN).

It's obvious to me we are going to pay more for power anyway. The way things are going with energy prices by the time they are built it might look cheap. Afar as the safety risk goes we currently have over 100 nuclear plants and have had no major leaks. Modern plants would be even safer. I think the main focus here should be to build these plants in areas that are not likely to be damaged by Hurricanes or Earthquakes.

If it's so necessary then McCain can plant all 45 of the nuclear facilities in Arizona. When there is a leak (like the naval nuclear sub has been leaking since 2006), or another 3-mile island and Chernobyl, then good citizens of Arizona can deal with it. Let them also deal with storage of the nuclear waste. And think of all the jobs brought to Arizona. Best idea yet. Put your home state at risk.

OK John, let's start in Arizona then. I'm sorry but I have two small kids to worry about. That is what shapes my decisions. Maybe McCain could think of his grandkids and how it would affect them…

Wait? We have to pay MORE FOR ENERGY according to MCCAIN'S nuclear proposal??? Wasn't that what he accused Obama of wanting to do? And why do we want anymore nuclear anything on this planet??? You'd think with how urgently this administration is trying to prevent Iran from going nuclear that it was the last thing this planet needed.

The scare tactics of environmental extremists continues to pollute and distort all discussion of nuclear plants. There is extensive data on the safety of these plants and precautions that are built into them. The waste product is minimal and is easliy managed. The extremists do not want to hear this and neither does the media. Hysteria and fear sells - its more exciting to shout about the perceived dangers instead of disussing the facts. Three mile island was blown out of proportion - the safety devices performed as designed and any release of radiation is less than you receive living in Denver. The US is missing the boat on nuclear energy and being left behind by the rest of the world. We shouid be looking at all alternative energy sources, but we need to being implementing technolgies that are now ready and proven. We need to stop living in fear of nuclear power - it is save, affordable and clean.

For the record: McCain voted against allowing nuclear waste in Arizona. So what does he intend to do with the waste that is produced by his plants.

Nuclear power plants are safe… but our disposal plan for spent nuclear waste basically amounts to "throw it down a hole and hope nothing bad happens in the 10,000 years it takes to become safe."

Considering the report today regarding the nuclear sub that has been leaking nuclear waste for the past 2 years this plan and its environmental effects needs to be reviewed with a fine tooth comb.

I challenge CNN journalist to fact check and report to us, its readers and viewers, the feasibility of 45 additional plants and the percentage of probably nuclear hazards.

Jason said, "It's time America goes all-out for domestic-reliant energy!"

I agree 100%, Jason. But solar and wind power are renewable, don't produce radioactive waste, and are much safer than nuclear. Not to mention that 45 more nuke plants would mean alot more nuclear material being transported, which means a lot more chances for material to come up missing and get into the hands of our enemies.

CNN Money is about as dumb as the rest of you whole-heartedly supporting McCain's nuclear energy ambitions.

First McCain's nuclear energy plans calls for building 2 nuclear plants per year over the next 20 years. Where is the manpower, materials and capital coming from to build to his aggressive market-based plan?

Secondly, nuclear power plants provide 20% of the nation's electricity. Oil that is burned to create electricity amounts to about 1%. The bulk of the nation's electricity comes from coal and natural gas from the good ole U.S. of A.

Thirdly, where does McCain plain to store the used nuclear fuel rods from 45 additional nuclear plants? The Yucca Mountain in Nevada is being challenged today as a storage site for today's used nuclear plants rods.

one more thing
exxonmccain.com

Problems with Nuclear Power Plants
­W­ell-constructed nuclear power plants have an important advantage when it comes to electrical power generation — they are extremely clean. Compared with a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plants are a dream come true from an environmental standpoint. A coal-fired power plant actually releases more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a properly functioning nuclear power plant. Coal-fired plants also release tons of carbon, sulfur and other elements into the atmosphere (see this page about coal pollution for details).

Unfortunately, there are significant problems with nuclear power plants:

Mining and purifying uranium has not, historically, been a very clean process.

Improperly functioning nuclear power plants can create big problems. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated, but it dramatically shows the worst-case scenario. Chernobyl scattered tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere.

Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is toxic for centuries, and, as yet, there is no safe, permanent storage facility for it.

Transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses some risk, although to date, the safety record in the United States has been good.
­T­hese problems have largely derailed the creation of new nuclear power plants in the United States. Society seems to have decided that the risks outweigh the rewards.

No, no, no! You got it all wrong, McCain. This is where we part ways.

What about water, wind, solar??? Think about your great-great-grandchildren, John.

Agnes, so when it's time to turn the lights off, I hope you don't mind if we start with you. You anti-nukes are Luddites (look it up). Reprocessing (opposed by Luddite Obama) drastically cuts the waste. the rest goes to yucca Mt. in NV to be stored in a geologically safe repository. Meanwhile the NRC is funding efforts to reduce the radioactivity of waste by bombarding it with nuclear particles.

Where's the risk? Has one blown up lately? As far as I can remember we only had a problem with one since they started building them. One out of 104, not bad odds. I see more oil plants blow up every year then this. Why not dump the waste where they tested all the A-bombs, this land is useless now. Course it's OK to pollute our rivers and ocean with run off from oil plants and other plants. You people need to get over solar power being the solution, it doesn't generate enough power to run a large city, also they take up so much land where are you going to place them. Also where do you plan on dumping the old batteries at? How many of you people have switch your houses over to solar power.

—————————————————————————————————
Arin
"If he's willing to put all 45 plants in Texas, I will vote for John McCain."
———————————————————————————————–

As far as building them in Texas, bring it on we have plenty now and would welcome more. At least Texans are trying to help not like some other states.

McCain '08

McCain '08

…"just like THE Republicans…" typing too fast…hehe!

I have no problem with nuclear plants. Even after TMI, the radiation was contained as it was designed to be. I DO have a problem with nuclear waste. For over 50 years we've had this problem & still haven't come up with a good plan to get rid of it or do something with it.

place a solid object in the path of the wind and a few flags a few feet away on and angle now watch what happens when you place and then remove the solid object . the point being that we know that obstructing the wind pattern will have consequences the wind in these corridors have shaped it's terrain and ecosystem for thousands and thousands of years what effects will too many turbines have, if any on our weather.ect. we have to expect that the price of steel will sky rockect as demand increases so cars ect. will be almost unaffordable alternate fuel is a great idea but while we are figuring out the consequences should we not go with sen. McCain's proposal to use energy and technology that we have and know to bridge that gap instead of forging ahead without a back up plan

Hey Texas Trail Dog,

GIVE MCCAIN YOUR ADDRESS SO HE CAN BUILD ONE IN YOUR BACKYARD. LET YOUR GRANDCHILDREN BE THE EXAMPLE OF YOUR BRAVERY AND YOUR IGNORANCE.

Does anyone remember the debates with Gov. Richardson? He made it clear that we don't yet have the technology to dispose of the nuclear waste yet. Sen. Obama has agreed and says that once we have the technology, which he supports, to properly recylce the nuclear waster from these reactors, that he is all for it.

It's just like to Republican to rush in to something (IRAQ?) with out thinking things thoroughly from A to Z, all for either money or votes!

McBush can't just build these nuclear plants without having a means to properly recycle the waste!

If 104 plants equals 20% of electrical power then bulid another 416 plants.100 % nuclear powered electricity.Dump the waste in New Jersey,call it a new eco-friendly make work project.Let McCain's buddies make lots of money.Basically placate the whole issue & stay on the course America seems to like.It won't be good for America but who cares anymore! Ya 'all let Bush do what he wanted! Vote McCain for a 100 years!

VOTE BOB BARR 2008.

Arizona does have nuclear power. Good, clean, reliable power that is sold to the hippies in CA. Remember those rolling brown outs. Nuclear power is THE way to go. Just watch out for Israelis trying to drop bombs on them.

If the French have such great success with the Nuclear Plants then why are their consumbers paying almost $15/gallon of oil? Because it doesn't mean anything that is why. And to the person who said that liberals are quick to like the French when they support Obama but even quickerer not to agree with them on Nuclear Energy, the same can be said about you, the repubs, PUMA, ex-Hillary supporters. You are all quick to support the nuclear energy but when the French love Obama you say he is cocky, elistist, blah blah blah

Grow UP!

Note to "Canada Supports Obama": It wouldn't surprise me a bit if Utah ultimately agreed to be one of these sites, since the majority is blindly backing McCain — check out a company called Energy Solutions.
For a guy who plays the fear card, one would think McCain would oppose nuclear power — what better way for terrorists to strike America?

I find them impractical for 3 reasons:

1. It's expensive: Building the darn plans is not cheap, and top it off with disposal of waste, maintenance, and possible problems, which brings me to…

2. It's Dangerous: Studies show them have a 45% percent chance of a meltdown. This means you have a 50-50 chance. It would require extensive safety precautions to compensate for this statistic. Plus, fallout is almost impossible to clean. It could take hundreds of years to clean up. A meltdown coupled with a high population density is a recipe for disaster. Google Chernobyl and you'll see what I mean.

3. Environment: Nuclear Power doesn't come close to coal or oil, but it's not water or wind, either. A meltdown requires cleanup. Plus it will do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I DO believe it is doable, but it is VERY risky. To me, the costs GREATLY outweigh the rewards. I am against these plants until be properly dispose wastes and reduce the possibility of a disaster. (Lower than 10% is recommended. Less than 5 is ideal.)

Jason you are a McIdiot

What would you do with all the nuclear waste? McCain full of old ideas because he is an old fool.

McCain mentioned he will consider a partial recycling 'decompose' method with the nuclear waste, reusing it in some new fashion, similar to what the French are doing with their waste … although the plan is not official, as the specifications are not yet solid. He'll have to be more direct, as the leftover substances are used for nuclear weapons - I believe - countering his plans with reducing nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and safest power sources available. And all the waste that is implied by the other posters herein is actually minimal relative to most other energy forms; in other words, the grand total of all nuclear waste is still better measured in pounds rather than tons. Further, we have a safe nuclear waste respository deep below a mountain out in the middle of the desert.

As a spouse of someone who works in the nuclear industry, I can tell you about the conversations we've had at home.

First of all, for the most part, nuclear energy is incredibly safe. The big question, as addressed in most of these comments, is the storage issue.

Right now, nuclear waste, in the form of spent fuel, is being stored onsite at each nuclear facility. In this age of our fear of dirty bombs, the protection of that uranium store is only as good as the utility companies' security forces. Remember the sleeping security guards at Fermi??

Obama does in fact, despite McCain's misrepresentations and outright lies, support nuclear energy if the safety and storage issues can be resolved.

As with most things, the Republicans don't really consider the long-term consequences of their actions. Their "me, me, me" attitude translates to "we won't be around in 100 years, so we don't care what happens to the earth by then". Par for the course.

As someone who grew up with the nations biggest pile of nuclear waste in his back yard (Hanford reservation, Washington state), I can tell you it's not that bad. Anyone who hates nuclear power hasn't lived close to a nuclear power plant. It looks exactly like any other thermal plant only steam is all that comes out. I'm a Obama supporter, but we should give nuclear another look.

Doable but risky, just like McCain himself.

Why 45?

I'm pro Obama and want to see more nuclear plants, these are an efficient, large scale and well tested alternative to not so well tested, and relatively inefficient technologies like wind power and solar. And nuclear is clean. I say build a bunch of reactors out in the Nevada/Utah/New Mexico desert and build wires to distribute it nationally.

According to Businessweek, only about 10 plants are really "doable"

Please tell me where he is going to find 45 places in America to put them. He doesn't even want Nuclear tankers driving through Arizona. If he's elected then they should find the 45 locations where voters voted for him the most and stick these plants there. Your president, yuour mess.

McWar is try everything and everything to get elected

SORRY OLD WRINKED WHITE HAIRED MAN….NOT HAPPENIN'

Let's put the used nuclear waste in your state…watch the outcry

Nuclear or not…….you be toast old fella

Jason: Although I am not supporting McCain, I do like the idea of Nuclear Energy and yes France and Sweden have been using it effectively for a while now. My only questions I have regarding this though can we safely store the by-waste and can we ensure the protection of the surrounding communites? And asking him to build one in his own backyard….come on Dems, don't be idiots. All of the Nuclear power plants should be built in rural areas, far from the public and secured like Fort Knox. Put down your mics at the Improv folks and lets have a real discussion about this.

Pay more for power? Sounds like a tax increase.

At the bottom of the full article…

"""Of the 81 security tests done between 1991 and August 2001, nearly half turned up lapses that could lead to core damage and probable radioactive release"""

But, wait, who was the "risky" candidate again?

Just more pandering and ignoring the facts by the disgraceful McCain campaign.

McCain does have a nuclear power plant right outside his home. Its called Palo Verde and now it is just outside Phoenix's city limits.

Nuclear is a viable option and must be considered in any true plan to strengthen energy security. I am also a fan of Solar and wind, but these alone will not ween us off of oil refineries, natural gas power plants, and coal power plants.

T. Boone Pickens says he can use America's wind corridor to produce 20% of our energy needs using wind turbines. Why risk nuclear unless we have to?

McBush is a moron and his nuclear plan is stupid. We can't even deal with legacy nuclear waste from the 60s and 70s even now.

How many states does mccain think will be willing to "house" these plants or store the waste?

OBAMA/BIDEN

@Canada Supports Obama: Dude, you have twenty nuclear reactors in Ontario alone. Check Wikipedia…

The risk of having a plant near you is basically nil. The problem is storage of the nuclear byproducts, which is really problematic. We may get better technology for the storage in the future, but who knows.

On the other hand, I think any intelligent person would realize that if 20% of our power already comes from nuclear, it is incredibly safe and efficient. Safer to live near a nuclear power plant than drive a car.

Wind and solar??? Good one, fools. You couldn't build enough windmills to keep up with the demand if you used every square mile of the mid-west. What do you do when Barack is not speaking and there is no wind? Same for solar, no sun at night, too inefficient. Wake up!

mcbush is truly inept. pay more for power. The power board here in TN has already raised rates 3 times this year!

Not to mention the safety hazard in disposing the waste. Did mcsenile think this through or is he just being spoon fed info from Cheney?

ANYTHING THAT MCSHAME DOES WOULD BE RISKY!!! NEVER FOR MCSHAME!!! EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Enlightened voter, I see you are back with your trivial name calling and non-plan as well. Nuclear has no CO2 emissions, you should be happy. As for waste, ever heard of a breeder reactor? Any other waste can be used to build more bombs to drop on Iran!

Back to the drawing board, Senator.

well it sounds good as long as it is not close to my residence…….I don't need a 9/11 nuclear disaster……I will stick with wind and solar……those are the two cheapest forms of energy here in the southwest……..and we don't want our beaches messed up either……we don't need another Exxon Valdez in California……..make sure you open that nuclear energy plant in Ohio….they are dumb enough to have it in their backyard……..PS buckeyes the most overrated football team in the last two seasons…….Buckeyes in a BCS championship game smells like puke

He'll probably ship all the waste over to Iraq and all those places he would rather make war with.

I'm all for it so long as all the nuclear waste is stored in AZ.

He keeps talking about the nuclear plants, but I haven't heard anything about what he plans to do with all that radioactive nuclear waste. Twice as many plants will produce twice as much waste, and as far as I have heard, they don't know what to do with the waste they already produce!

What McJoke failed to tell the American people is that his tour to plant #2 was only after he was told that he couldn't visit Plant #1 because it was shut down for safety reasons. He is also flip flopping. First he says it's safe and not he says that Americans have to be willing to take safety risks. He also doesn't want any one to know that he does not want radioactive waste transported through his home state. CNN and other news sources, how about examining McSames ideas with the same fierceness as you do Obamas?

McCain is risky!

nuclear power plants are safe, and have MUCH fewer emissions then any petroleum and natural gas fired plant. Is there a risk, always, but it is the way to go.

No Nuclear Power plants!!!! Not ever period.
Be responsible to the planet and our future generations. Where will all that extra nuclear waste be stored???

What I dont think McCain understands is energy return. The amount of energy it would take to make and power that plant vs the energy it would produce. Most experts are already saying creating giant plants like that are in the red.

Saying you want a power plant is one thing. What resources it takes to get it functional is the heart of the matter.

Just shows how much he does not know about energy.

Risky is the thought of an unstable man who sends chills down the spines of members of his own party occupying the White House.

Quote by Republican Senator Thad Cochran 02/04/08: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

02/04/08: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are deeply disturbed by the possibility that Senator John McCain may become the next presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Our dislike of Senator McCain’s positions is real and visceral.