McCain: Nuclear Good, Ethanol Bad

McCain On Nuclear Power

I agree with Senator McCain that this country needs many more nuclear power

plants, but my 'take' may be a little different than his:

Many would argue that the decision to 'go nuclear' should be 'left to the market place.

I disagree and believe that there should be significant government support, even

subsidy, because 'nuclear' has the potential to resolve not just the question of

economical energy generation, but also several other issues of great

benefit to our society:

1) The manufacture of non-climate change transportation fuels, such as ammonia

and hydrogen, from surplus electricity or via thermochemistry in high temperature

nuclear reactors.

2) If we generate enough energy via nuclear or other means, then we stop the

loss of $500 billion in negative trade balance to foreign countries for fuel. Poten-

tially we could even generate a large positive balance via energy export, thereby

aiding our economy and the world economy.

3) The reduction in 'resource wars', funding our enemies in the war on terror and

other foreign entanglements.

4) Cheap energy surpluses, say capped at $50 / barrel of energy equivalent,

would reduce fertilizer costs, move crop land from biofuels back to food procuction,

switch us back to food surpluses, and thereby reduce the cost of food for many of

the world's poor.

5) Energy stability and surplus translates into a 'large shot in the arm' for an

energy-intensitive, high-tech economy and its jobs, which requires stable,

reliable energy supplies 24 / 7.

6) Energy stability and surplus translates into energy security, and thereby

enhances our military capability and force projection capabilities.

7) China is starting the construction of another coal-fired plant every 50 days.

The consequences of this, and of our own coal plants, now that sequestration

R & D has been cancelled, are very bad. Much of the world is 'going nuclear'.

25 % of the particulates in the Los Angeles basin are of Chinese origin. This is

one world. We should be leading and aiding the world to 'go nuclear' for purposes

of reducing or stopping climate change, and for stopping probable future mass

starvation.

We could learn much from the French government / private nuclear energy

generation model.

Regards, Arthur M. Collins, Retired Nuclear & Aerospace Engineer.

Arthur - great comment

Another smart engineer stating the truth. Thanks Arthur, very informative. Our economy is dependent on an ever-increasing use of energy. It only takes 3 feet of water to protect me from a used nuclear fuel rod; that's a lot safer than the UV radiation and other harmful byproducts created by the processing of fuels from oil, coal, shale, corn, etc. The rest of the 1st world has been aggressively adopting and improving nuclear technology. We are 20 years behind. The “China Syndrome” is a thing of the past. Have no fear of atomic energy. None of us can stop the time. Educate the public and assuage their fears. Allow the construction of modern nuclear plants. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.