Comments on: Is nuclear power the answer on climate change? Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: drchemy1 Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:37:56 +0000 Here is a simple solution. Simply ban the construction of new fossil fuel electric plants. If a country feels they can generate their electricity with renewals, fine. If not use nuclear power. Those are your only choices.

By: SlimLee Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:31:53 +0000 About half the fossil fuel use in the USA is for transport (car, trucks, trains, planes), home and building heating, industrial uses, mining, etc. This can be replaced with hydrogen produced efficiently through high temperature steam electrolysis (and other high temp methods). High temperature reactors can produce hydrogen during times of low electrical demand. It is impractical to do the same via solar/wind. The expense of nuclear will soon prove irrelevant should we continue to conduct this experiment with human extinction via the CO2 catalyst.

By: MartyPorter Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:15:55 +0000 If you believe that climate change is a
serious threat, and yet you oppose nuclear power as one of, if not the only, serious contender to create large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then you and your ideology are part of the problem- not the solution. If you believe so called renewables alone can supply the electricity this planet needs now and in the future you are dreaming.

The world needs more power not less- that is unless you want to sentence the balance of the humans on the planet that don’t currently have reliable electric power to stay that way. Even many of the environmental crusaders of the last several decades have finally come to the realization that there is no free lunch, and are now nuclear advocates.

Most renewable facilities utilize a fossil fuel backup for base load as solar and wind are sporadic suppliers of electricity, and we need to carry a base load at all times. Recently burning natural gas is the go to method for this base load production, and it is way better than coal regarding CO2 emissions and pollution, but is still emitting CO2. For a very balanced documentary regarding nuclear and the future please see the CNN produced documentary film Pandora’s Promise.

The argument regarding cost is strictly due to the permitting hurdles artificially erected to dissuade further development in the wake of three mile island. Government has a role to play, but they need to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

By: Lovetwo Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:20:19 +0000 If you’re answer to climate change is to further the spread of dangerous radiation into our global air, soil and water? This has been tried; And failed.

Nuclear Cold Fusion is 98+% more efficient and cleaner.

All Big Corporate “Lobbies” must move to advance their technologies to cleaner and more economically efficient fuel sources that will stimulate the economy and repair Our Earth’s natural balance.
This is the answer to rapid accelerated climate change. “Change” to new and easily adaptable technology to suit the rapidly changing economic and global climate.

To disregard the necessary advancement of Nuclear Cold Fusion is irresponsible to say the least.

Now is the time to quickly adapt your technology as to negate your global responsibility will only further the damage done to Our Earth, that sustains us All, and you’re precious economy (you’re bottom line).

So say’s God.

Peace be with you All.


By: Bookfan Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:17:11 +0000 Americans could have any sort of power sources they’d like to have, if they could get propagandists like this fool off of their backs. Apparently, they can’t.

Initial cost is not an issue for a nation that can throw $4,000,000,000,000.00 into an Iraqi/Afghanistan toilet. We are so vastly wealthy, and the payoffs for green energy so big, that whether or not it is affordable is a sideshow. The problem is that the current profiteers run the game.

By: ARJTurgot2 Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:26:01 +0000 Wow, the scientist that is the basis for much of what Al Gore and the Environment crew believe disagrees with Al Gore and the Environment crew. Now *there* is an Inconvenient Truth.

By: chyron Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:39:10 +0000 @doren
Actually people tend to misunderstand how much current world depends on infrastructure and how even big busyness is too small and narrrow-sighted to keep said basic infrastructure in working order. Even POTUS somewhat clumsily acknowledged this in ‘you didn’t build that’ speech. Energy is part of that vital infrastructure now.
As for big gov’t vs ‘Laissez-faire’ – even in golden era of industrial revolution private companies couldn’t build railroads (vital for development of USA and Russia) without ‘a little help’ from gov’ts in form of essentially officialized landgrab.

By: doren Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:59:10 +0000 Conservation of course, is never addressed. THE most cost effective part of the solution. Even the slightest inconvenience cannot be considered by the spoiled Roman like consumers of the first world. Inconveniences so small as to be negligible. Instead we rush madly towards a world that for billions will be a nightmare. Elysium is not about the future, its about the present.

And for the right wingers who advocate Nuclear… they say they believe in the open market, but Nuclear cannot find anyone STUPID enough to insure them. Never has never will. It has to be insured by BIG GOVERNMENT, and of course vastly under insured. So much for free market hypocrites.

By: euro-yank Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:37:43 +0000 Nuclear garbage is deadly for thousands of years. The suggestion that we pollute the planet for all our children and grandchildren ad infinitum just in order to have cheaper fuel now is beyond so far beyond selfish that it’s truly unbelieveable.

By: google_pass Sun, 12 Jan 2014 05:44:16 +0000 Mr. Schiffman is mentioning Thorium reactors. Actually there exists a Thorium reactor research cooperation between the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy. Although in my opinion nukes are not wanted on this planet and I really could get used to the idea of climate change. Change means, that we’re still alive, doesn’t it?