A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal
News rolled in yesterday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for a huge increase in the number of nuclear power plants in the U.S.: 45 new plants by 2030, and another 55 after that. That's almost twice as many new plants as are operating in the U.S. today (104, according to the AP). What benefits does nuclear offer? According to McCain, "Every year, these [104] reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America." Of course, there's a lot of uncertainty about nuclear power, as we recently discussed, and McCain's call to reduce the time new nuclear plants would need to get permits cleared away doesn't seem exactly prudent. McCain also said the U.S. should spend $2b a year developing clean coal technologies.
The issue of producing electricity is key to the green car movement, especially as we move more and more to plugging our vehicles in. VW CEO Martin Winterkorn likes nuclear for plug-in cars, for example. A while back, when we delved into the nuclear debate in any length here on AutoblogGreen, I said I'm not at all convinced that nuclear power is the best way to power out EVs. But some of you do think so, and that's fine. Here's a question for everyone, though: does McCain's plan make sense to you, or are we back in summer gas tax holiday territory?
[Source: AP]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
1985 Gripen 10:43AM (6/19/2008)
Sebastian, you HAD to know I'd weigh-in on this. ;-)
As a waffling McCain supporter (my support is wavering but I'm still with him) I have to say I like the idea of nuclear. Sure there are better ways to produce electricity, but in the amounts required in the timeframe required? It seems only nuclear would fit this bill. If he can reduce some of the bureaucratic red tape and SAFELY get a bunch of nuclear reactors on-line I think this would be a good thing. Sure, there will be more nuclear waste which everyone agrees is an issue to be dealt with, but I see global climate change as a bigger and more immediate threat than nuclear waste.
As for clean coal, I guess I need to learn more about it. My gut reaction is that it's just a way for the coal industry to stay relevant, but I'm cynical. Hopefully it actually is a viable alternative and can be good. I'm not adverse to at least LOOK at the possibility.
I like that McCain is going out there and actually proposing things rather than living off a "cult of personality" though. ;-)
Reply
Steve 10:40AM (6/19/2008)
Never mind the environment. Nuclear power does not make economic sense. The costs to build them are too high, the price of uranium is going up too rapidly, and solar and wind power combined with thermal energy storage can do the same job as nuclear power plants for a lower initial investment with dramatically lower maintenance and operating costs.
People who like nuclear have not done their homework. The utilities have, and thats why we haven't had any plants built for so long. Not because of regulations (although they don't improve the numbers any), but because of cold hard economics.
As for clean coal, how's that working out for the current administration?
Reply
s13hybrid 10:44AM (6/19/2008)
I have not been able to read the other articles, but my questions are: What about nucleur waste? What is the cure for that? Is this just going to make one more big problem if we head that way?
Reply
Mike Z 10:48AM (6/19/2008)
The notion that we can replace all our our dirty genreation in short order with just Solar and Wind is a fantiacy. Period, end of story.
I would rather deal with nuclear waste than put all our hopes on technologies that has not proven themselves at being able to meet all our demand --and as a result have to continue to result in sources of energy that rely on our atmosphere to dispose of their waste.
Reply
Mike Z 10:48AM (6/19/2008)
The notion that we can replace all our our dirty generation in short order with just Solar and Wind is a fantasy. Period, end of story.
I would rather deal with nuclear waste than put all our hopes on technologies that has not proven themselves at being able to meet all our demand --and as a result have to continue to result in sources of energy that rely on our atmosphere to dispose of their waste.
Reply
Matt 10:56AM (6/19/2008)
Yeah, let's choose the energy option that produces waste that is toxic for longer than modern man has been on the earth. That's a legacy we should be proud to leave our children.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 10:55AM (6/19/2008)
The French recycle their nuclear waste back into new fuel. The final waste per person, after providing electrical power for their entire lifetime, fits in a teacup. That compares to many tons of waste per person for the American way.
But then, we don't like the French, so we have to do it our way.
IMHO, the French way makes nuclear viable. If we use solar and wind extensively, then we won't need as many nukes as McCain proposes. We'll still need some for base load, but not as many.
Coal is the worse, environmentally. Except for oil, any of the other options is better than coal. There is no such thing as clean coal, it is a myth from the coal lobby. Of course, coal is also the cheapest way to produce power. so it's a tough sell to say we need to get rid of it.
Reply
Dinosaurus 10:59AM (6/19/2008)
The fact is if America will be serious about electric cars then we WILL need more Nuclear plants. I think if gas hits $10/gallon we'll see some Nuclear plants built pretty quickly.
Reply
Yanquetino 11:12AM (6/19/2008)
I agree with Steve above. Perhaps I am a product of having grown up amid "fallout shelters" and practiced "air raids" in elementary school, but I frown on anything nuclear.
I hardly see uranium as a renewable energy source. Neither do spent fuel rods strike me as environmentally friendly. And heaven forbid should anti-American zealots ever decide to target such a plant.
The huge amounts of money needed to build, run, and protect nuclear power plants could be much better spent on solar, wind, and geothermal alternatives. After all, we can't put nuclear reactors on our roofs. Spend the money on incentives and subsidies for tax payers to install solar panels and wind generators instead!
Thirty years ago, nuclear proponents were claiming that by the year 2000 we would have harnessed fusion and could thus turn away from the toxic dangers of fission. It is now 2008, and I don't hear one word about fusion anymore. Unless and until that transition comes about, we should forget about nuclear power and focus on truly clean, renewable sources of energy.
That's my $.02 worth, anyway.
Reply
Steve 11:25AM (6/19/2008)
"The notion that we can replace all our our dirty generation in short order with just Solar and Wind is a fantasy. Period, end of story."
Fair enough. But the notion that we can replace all our dirty power generation in any amount of time with nuclear power is worse than just a fantasy, it's plain idiotic.
See here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nuclear_power_price/
Or here:
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
Or here:
http://energy.ihs.com/News/Press-Releases/2008/North-American-Power-Generation-Construction-Costs-Rise-27-Percent-in-12-Months-to-New-High-IHS-CERA.htm
Or here:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917
Or perhaps here:
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf
Any questions?
Reply
glenn 11:24AM (6/19/2008)
so mike,
Solar and wind are a bad idea because they "[have] not proven themselves at being able to meet all our demand"? That's a pretty high bar to set. Does nuclear meet it?
Reply
Mike Z 11:19AM (6/19/2008)
Uranium is as renewable as the Steel, Copper, Silicon, and Iridium that make up wind turbines and solar panels.
Reply
Peter 12:19PM (6/19/2008)
We need long term viability study on Nuclear, that at least does some projections on fuel availability/cost to the end of nuclear plant lifespan as the fuel is also a natural resource that is entering higher demand.
Ultimately we need to do it all. Nuclear/Solar/Hydro/wind and even some tightly scrubbed coal plants as a last resort.
That and we need to concentrate more on efficiency.
The french have done nuclear right, we really need to look at what they are doing right and emulate it.
Reply
OhmExcited 11:23AM (6/19/2008)
Although I strenuously disagree with McCain on the Iraq war and many other things, this is a bold strategy that makes sense and is actually achievable. The next step is a recycling program that is coordinated with Canada.
Reply
glenn 3:34PM (6/21/2008)
so mike,
Solar and wind are a bad idea because they "[have] not proven themselves at being able to meet all our demand"? That's a pretty high bar to set. Does nuclear meet it?
Reply
Mike Z 11:36AM (6/19/2008)
I never said Nuclear was the whole answer, but wind+solar+nuclear+geothermal is a winning formula.
Reply
glenn 3:34PM (6/21/2008)
so mike,
Solar and wind are a bad idea because they "[have] not proven themselves at being able to meet all our demand"? That's a pretty high bar to set. Does nuclear meet it?
Reply
jdk 11:47AM (6/19/2008)
Given that there are safe and efficient nuke plants in operation today, it would make sense to create a standard design based on those plants. This design can be thoroughly reviewed, then once approved, replicated any number of times. Then, if a flaw is detected, the fix can be applied to all of the copies easier than a host of unique designs. Also, building more of them means they do not have to be as large as some of the ones we have today.
Still invest and develop solar and wind, but I agree that they alone cannot be the answer...
Reply
MitchJi 11:52AM (6/19/2008)
"A McCain presidency would mean electric cars powered by nuclear plants, clean coal"
There is no such thing as "clean coal". Might as well depend on the tooth fairy to power electric cars.
Mitch
Reply
s13hybrid 11:54AM (6/19/2008)
I have to agree that a combo of all energy sources should be utilized. I am fine with building a few nuke plants for the help, but I do not see that as a very good long term plan. We must continue to move on with solar, wind, and geothermal. I only see this as another short term band aid for our energy problems.
We should continue to make energy efficient buildings, transportation, etc. Then we won't need energy producing sources as much.
Reply