McCain’s Nuke Here, Nuke Now Plan Is Terrible At Job Creation
McCain’s Nuke Here, Nuke Now Plan Is Terrible At Job Creation
In the presidential debate, John McCain promoted his nuclear obsession as a job-creation boon, claiming, “We can create 700,000 jobs by building 45 nuclear plants by 2030.” But McCain’s “nuke here, nuke now” would in fact send money to foreign nations and to giant corporations. The price tag for his nuclear boondoggle is estimated at “$315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.” That ties our energy future to a toxic and deadly fuel that is mined in nations like Kazakhstan, Russia, Niger, and Uzbekistan.
The Center for American Progress has outlined a rational green recovery plan that invests $100 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and would create 2 million new jobs in two years by spending on the American people. Three Ten times the jobs at one-third the cost, ten times as fast. That’s what real job creation would — and should look like.
UPDATE: The New York Times contacted Patrick Moore, head of Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear industry front group, who said McCain’s promises were wildly off:
[E]ach reactor project would generate between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 800 permanent jobs once in operation. Asked to provide a ballpark figure on employment if all 45 reactors were to be built, he responded “225,000 good union jobs that you can support a family on.”
UPDATE II: Gristmill’s David Roberts has the breakdown of John McCain’s 700,000-job claim.
4 Responses to “McCain’s Nuke Here, Nuke Now Plan Is Terrible At Job Creation”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
You want energy that doesn’t impact climate change that can be produced at home?
Then invest that $315 Billion in IGCC coal fired powerplants which can produce 90% carbon reductions per kWh for approx. $2500/kW. Nukes will probably cost $7500/kW. Now tell me which one is better.
You want a 500 MW plant?
That would be $1.25 Billion for IGCC, and $3.75 Billion for Nuclear. Tell me which one is a better idea? Huh.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pmThe first commercial IGCC CCS plants might be available in ten to fifteen years, if we’re lucky. Doesn’t seem like the best place to sink several billion dollars of our tax dollars, if you’re talking about impacting climate change or creating jobs.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pmThere is already commerically avaliable CCS technologies that can be adapted to the IGCC powerplants. IGCC powerplants are already viable, go to Wabash IN. Furthermore what alternative do you propose that doesn’t have its own risks? Wind power – too variable, Nukes – dangerous, Solar – $$$$$$ and variability, Hydro – No real place to put them left, tidal – even further off than anything else. Whats left? Whats wrong with 10 to 15 years ….
September 26th, 2008 at 11:42 pmAs already stated, McCain overstated the number of jobs needed to build and run the plants.
700,000 jobs divided by 45 plants equals over 15,500 jobs per power plant.
Maybe he was using figures given to him by Haliburton?
September 27th, 2008 at 3:32 pm