By now I’m sure we have all heard the election year colloquialisms: energy independence, climate change, renewable energy, drill here drill now, environmental stewardship, etc.
One campaign promise from one candidate leaps out at me as a sure fire way to accomplish or negate all of these. That is the pledge made by John McCain to build 45 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.
Now, as both a Republican and a young nuclear professional I am obviously in favor of this pledge. But all my feelings aside, I can honestly say that this is the one pledge that actually has the potential to accomplish all of those popular colloquialisms at once.
The new Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) from General Electric has the capacity to produce 1,500 Megawatts of electricity. Multiply this capacity by the 45 plants McCain proposes and we are looking at 67,500 Megawatts of new generating capacity in the US!
Contrary to what interveners will tell you, nuclear power is safe. Even the worst nuclear accident in United States history at Three Mile Island did not result in one single human death! This statistic coupled with the advances in safety technology incorporated in the ESBWR makes nuclear one of the safest means of power generation available.
Also consider the fact that nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy supply. Regardless of your stance on global warming, there can be no doubt that zero-carbon is the preferable means of generation. Couple this with the magnitude of electrical generation that nuclear has the capacity for and you quite simply have both energy independence and environmental stewardship all in one package.
It is widely believed that Hydrogen Fuel Cells hold the key to transportation energy.  The biggest hurdle to this of course is where do we get Hydrogen? With electricity prices so high, electrolysis from water (H2O) is not practical and hence removing the Hydrogen from Natural Gas (C2H5) is the only alternative. The down side to this of course is your byproduct from natural gas is CO2 instead of just the pure O2 that electrolysis produces. Nuclear generated electricity would be cheap enough to allow electrolysis to produce enough hydrogen to power the nation’s vehicles. Not only that, but the only byproducts would be the O2 produced by the process and the steam (H2O) from the car’s exhaust.  Yet another CO2 reduction!
But what about that growing mountain of highly radioactive, long lived nuclear waste?
Mr. McCain has also pledged to both open the Yucca Mountain repository and pursue spent fuel recycling. Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored at the plant that produced the waste. The Yucca Mountain Repository is a multi billion-dollar project that has been long-delayed by political maneuvering and is yet to open.
Spent fuel recycling will not only provide additional energy to the cycle without further mining, but it will also reduce the burden placed on Yucca Mountain by slowing the rate at which the waste is produced.
The media has referred to Barack Obama as “lukewarm on nuclear.â€Â Sadly, this is a fallacy. By refusing to open Yucca Mountain, refusing to allow spent fuel recycling, and failing to support new plant construction Mr. Obama is, by definition, anti-nuclear. With Obama’s lack of support for each of the three issues that would allow nuclear to fulfill the nations energy demands his policy might better be described as “ice cold on nuclear.â€Â Obama cannot come out publicly and say this of course, for fear of exposing his inability to go against radical leftists.
Energy is at the core of nearly every major issue today. The economy, national security, the environment: all are contingent upon meeting our growing energy demands. Nuclear can meet those needs if our government would only allow it.
John McCain will allow it.  Barack Obama will not. Consider this in November.
~Man Overboard
You forgot the colloquialism “main street”.
Jack, nice work.
Question: In how much actually is 67,500 Megawatts of energy? What kind of tangible income will that have?
In terms of income it is hard to sum up. Here are a few:
1. Reduced property taxes in the communities of the plants.
2. 500 to 700 new high paying jobs at each new plant.
3. Thousands of new construction jobs to build them.
4. Tens of thousands of ‘Satellite’ jobs i.e. restaurants, stores, and hotels that spring up around new plants.
5. Reduced cost to consumers via lower utility bills.
6. Money stays in the US instead of shipped over seas to terrorists.
7. Several Billion dollars a year in annual revenues for these sites.
Any idea, and I’m only looking for ballpark here, how many people and/or homes that could provide power for?
Sorry if I’m asking too many questions.
On average, one megawatt of electricity powers 800 homes.
67,500 MW would power 54 MILLION HOMES!
Incredible. Now can, any one nuclear plant have more than one of these new Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor?
Almost all of them certainly will be dual unit sites. Others will most likely be second units at an existing site.
Dual unit sites have shown tremendous cost savings, logistical, and safety benefits paving the way for even cheaper/safer production.
Excellent and thanks for your patience. I think this is my last question…
Does the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor produced 24 Megawatts daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?
1,500 megawatts 24 hours a day, 365 days a years, rain or shine, wind or not. (not including outages and down powers for maintenance and refueling)
Impressive. Most impressive. Perhaps we can take our politicians and find new ways to motivate them.
Obama will never get behind nuclear. Too many mis-informed far-left idiots think its too dangerous and expensive when in reality its clean and cheap.
Voting for Obama paints a real clear picture of one’s intelligence and ability to be brain-washed.
I hope so for your sake Mr. Molyneux. The Democrats are not as forgiving as I am.
What about the cost/benefit? I have heard conflicting reports on cost per megawatt hour and I am having a hard time deciphering myth from reality. I know, I know, it’s wikipedia, but the cost/benefit is listed out pretty intelligently based on several contingencies and types of nuclear power plants. It seems like there is the ability to either do it right, which will lead you to the benefits you listed above, or to do it poorly, which will lead to unprofitable spending.
The cost is all in initial construction.
$5 billion for a new reactor, $7 billion for a dual unit site (note the savings there). This is paid for by 20% private investment and 80% govt loans. Emphasis on the word ‘loan.’ This is not a handout or a subsidy. It will be paid back over 10 years.
After that, the cost per MW is negligible when compared to the other energy sources.
Am I Andrew? Because I believe that Obama is anti-the best energy solution? A solution that promises domestic jobs and economical savings as Jack suggests?
I am quite bored and annoyed with someone who has demonstrated racism in their own church…someone who benefits from the bail-out…someone who is part of ACORN.
The Energy Crisis is the most important issue on this planet. McCain wants to use nuclear power to help solve it. Obama promises energy independence (non-nuclear) in 10 years even though professional engineers say it can’t be done in less than 20.
Again…demonstrate your intelligence.
I will demonstrate mine by agreeing with Jack. Although, we all have talked about this before, the government has not shown it can be a responsible steward of our money so how can we expect any government investment to be distributed to the private sector based on competition of the best and most executable ideas? This is no knock on McCain or his plan, I am more speaking in general.
I am all about the nuclear plan, but I just hope that it is acted on appropriately, that’s all. Same goes for alternative fuel investments. I don’t want to see somebody like Obama showering the solar, or wind, or whatever market with subsidies because they are campaign contributors or friends. I want to see the best solutions funded.
Jon you assumed I didn’t support nuclear because I support Obama, but that’s just not where I stand.
My views on alternative energy are that we should be approaching it from a balanced perspective…don’t rule anything out, but also don’t rely on any one means until it has proven to really be the most efficient and effective for the long haul. If we go that route we should witness progress.
Here’s a collection of Obama quotes on nuclear energy.
And all those quotes are is wishy-washy political rhetoric. Along the lines of, whatever energy special interest groups financially support me the most will get subsidized for alternate energy projects.
Obama sits on the fence with energy because he is waiting for the
solutionoffer that benefits him the most.Well said
Andrew, you probably did vote for nuclear energy before you voted against it…haha.
Anyway, can you prove that nuclear power isn’t the most efficient and effective for the long haul? Because most nuclear engineers and related field professionals, including Jack can prove that it is.
Given the figures Jack put up in comment #3, it seems as if millions of jobs can be created with a clean and economically feasible stab at the energy crisis (mainly our dependence on foreign oil).
Since Obama’s stance on nuclear power caters to a voting base of (don’t even have to mention the label, its that obvious), a vote for Obama is a vote in the wrong direction of potential job creation and reduced energy costs related to the building of these plants.
Jay, I understand what you are saying. It is hard to believe it will be a trusted smooth operation after seeing situations like Haliburton. Btw, any chance of an analysis on why automotive gas has decreased 25% per gallon in the last 2-3 months(separate post obviously)?
I can do it right here: because futures traders and OPEC now know that the people of the US will not have enough disposable income to afford $4 per gallon gasoline. $3.25 is still more than $2.50, which is probably where it realistically should be if wall street rapists and OPEC collusion weren’t market forces. We also showed them that if driven far enough, even the milk-toast wussies of this country will cut back on their luxuries at a certain price point, thus proving gasoline is not a totally inelastic commodity. Very inelastic, but not totally inelastic.
Is it possible for me to be pro-nuclear and pro-Obama? Or is that a perfect world that I don’t live in?
P.s. I’m all for radical thinking…
Sure Jeff, as long as you realize and admit to yourself that if Obama is elected, there will be less progress in nuclear energy than if McCain were elected.
If the energy crisis was the only major issue America was facing I’d vote for John McCain.
But the other two issues are the war and the economy, and while neither candidate is offering anything close to a fail-safe solution on either of those issues, Obama’s proposed policies seem more cautious and I personally think caution is a virtue in chaotic times.
I just can’t trust a maverick. Mavericks are unpredictable by nature.
Did somebody see Jeff Ruemeli?
Iceman told us why to fear Maverick(s)…
“You’re everyone’s problem. That’s because every time you go up in the air, you’re unsafe. I don’t like you because you’re dangerous.”
So “no” to my question then huh?…
JEFF RUEMELI FOR PRES THEN!
-ALL HAIL ME!
hahaha…where did whooo gooooo?
Andrew, energy is directly related to the economy.
Jeff, I said yes it is possible to be both pro-nuclear and pro-Obama.
Andrew:
Energy IS the definitive issue of our time. The resolution of which can mostly cure the other two ills that you cite. By lowering the cost and environmental impact of our energy consumption, people have more disposable income which will bolster the economy coupled with the investment in infrastructure that comes with energy solutions provides a very positive forecast for the US’s GDP.
The war? Which one? Doesn’t matter – removing our economic involvement in the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations affords us a degree of separation from those countries, thereby decreasing our influence in the region. Less US influence in that world region is what the people we are fighting want. So why not give it to them by becoming independent from their natural resources?
Everything is related to the economy. But let’s say you get alternative energy right, but screw up the war on terror – that would mean more money being spent on the war, which would negatively impact the economy.
See but I see the war as double sided – it’s about energy and its about ideology. So yeah you can cut reliance on the Mideast completely, but if you leave with the situation sour you get al Qaeda times 10.
Nuke ‘em
To say that energy is just one little issue that you disagree with Obama on is a little silly isn’t it? It’s the most important issue to the human race..much more important than the economy and the war.
Solve the energy problem and the economy and war will follow.
Here we sit a month after O-Bomb’s inauguration. Trillions are being spent and not one penny on nuclaer energy. Not only that but Obama is sitting by idly while Harry Reid and others in his part try to kill the Yucca Mountain project that the country has already spent hundreds of billion of dollars to build.