John McCain's plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.
The Republican presidential nominee wants the plants built in time to help the U.S. meet a 29 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each. Barack Obama, McCain's Democratic opponent, is less specific about his plans, saying he wants to ``find ways to safely harness nuclear power.''
Global warming and the rising cost of fossil fuels have boosted chances that atomic energy will supply more U.S. electricity. Public concerns remain about reactor safety and disposing of waste that stays hazardous for millennia. Investment bankers, citing the industry's cost overruns in the 1980s, say they won't finance its long-sought ``nuclear renaissance'' without federal backing. Read Article Here.
While I hate to admit it, McCain is probably right. Of the options, Nuclear is the one that will have the most rapid results. It is also one of the most dangerous. Currently solar/wind/hydro are not efficient enough to provide the increased demand in power. Nuclear is the only alternative energy that could be implemented and have real effects right away. Building plants would provide vital stimulation in the economy and it is low on emissions. Personally I think Obama needs to go for a more aggressive environmental plan. He will likely pick up voters and force McCain to either lose support from people Palin brought over with ANWAR or voters who support his environment friendly policies. It is also the one environmental policy that could leave us with blue hair and fins for hands. So as always it is a mix bag.
No comments:
Post a Comment