Comments on: McCain’s Nuke Here, Nuke Now Plan Is Terrible At Job Creation

By: ArtZ

ArtZ — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:32:14 +0000

As 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?

By: JimboSlice

JimboSlice — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:42:45 +0000

There 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 ….

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:25:14 +0000

The 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.

By: JimboSlice

JimboSlice — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:29:25 +0000

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.