<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer</title>
	<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/</link>
	<description>Enshrining Our Voices For Global Freedom.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Idetrorce</title>
		<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-10517</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:28:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-10517</guid>
					<description>very interesting, but I don't agree with you 
Idetrorce</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very interesting, but I don&#8217;t agree with you<br />
Idetrorce
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael Burton</title>
		<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-9235</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-9235</guid>
					<description>You people are so miss informed! It is even funny how dumb people are that don't know anything about nuclear power. For one did you know that rubidium which is found in nearly any dirt on the earth is a beta emitter. It actually gives off more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Nearly anything that decays emitts some sort of partical. I trust nuclear power everyday. How many Nuclear Incidents has there been with the US Navy? Zero(0) absolutly zero. The Navy has used nuclear power to propel ships and submarines to defend this GREAT country for over 50 years. I noticed how you compared a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb, This shows just how unknowledgeable you really are on nuclear reactors. I have a question for you. Do you know how a nuclear reactor works at all? Also do you know what primary and secondary systems are or better yet heat transfer? I have another question, DO YOU SMOKE CIGS? Did you know that cigarettes emit alpha particals into your lungs which is one of the major reasons it causes cancer. But an alpha partical is normally stopped by the dead layer of skin on the outside of the human body. Nuclear Power is one of cleanest powering systems in the world, granted it should be well supervised and restricted(as it is currently)to prevent any problems with it. Fosil fuels are dirtier fuels than any and I bet you own a car don't you?  Poeple really need to recieve knowledge before making decisions that nuclear power is bad.

Thanks for the Time,
Michael Burton</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You people are so miss informed! It is even funny how dumb people are that don&#8217;t know anything about nuclear power. For one did you know that rubidium which is found in nearly any dirt on the earth is a beta emitter. It actually gives off more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Nearly anything that decays emitts some sort of partical. I trust nuclear power everyday. How many Nuclear Incidents has there been with the US Navy? Zero(0) absolutly zero. The Navy has used nuclear power to propel ships and submarines to defend this GREAT country for over 50 years. I noticed how you compared a nuclear reactor to a nuclear bomb, This shows just how unknowledgeable you really are on nuclear reactors. I have a question for you. Do you know how a nuclear reactor works at all? Also do you know what primary and secondary systems are or better yet heat transfer? I have another question, DO YOU SMOKE CIGS? Did you know that cigarettes emit alpha particals into your lungs which is one of the major reasons it causes cancer. But an alpha partical is normally stopped by the dead layer of skin on the outside of the human body. Nuclear Power is one of cleanest powering systems in the world, granted it should be well supervised and restricted(as it is currently)to prevent any problems with it. Fosil fuels are dirtier fuels than any and I bet you own a car don&#8217;t you?  Poeple really need to recieve knowledge before making decisions that nuclear power is bad.</p>
<p>Thanks for the Time,<br />
Michael Burton
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: biodiesel</title>
		<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-7085</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-7085</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;biodiesel...&lt;/strong&gt;

I find that there is more and more information out there but we need to do as much possible to get the word out about how each person can do their part to help the energy situation in the world today....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>biodiesel&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I find that there is more and more information out there but we need to do as much possible to get the word out about how each person can do their part to help the energy situation in the world today&#8230;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael Stuart</title>
		<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-2296</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-2296</guid>
					<description>CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!

Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.

Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production.  Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.

Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down.  In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power.  What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.

Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation.  Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology.  Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat.  According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas.  Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions! 

Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation.  Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources.  In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer.  To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&#38;catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx

Michael Stuart
http://www.na-ygn.org/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!</p>
<p>Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.</p>
<p>Inefficient<br />
According to the California Energy Commission ( <a href='http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html</a> ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state&#8217;s electricity production.  Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.</p>
<p>Expensive<br />
According to the California Energy Commission ( <a href='http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html</a> ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down.  In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power.  What&#8217;s more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.</p>
<p>Environmental impact<br />
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation.  Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology.  Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat.  According to a US Department of Energy study ( <a href='http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf' rel='nofollow'>http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf</a> ), these systems are &#8220;hybridized&#8221; with up to 25% natural gas.  Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions! </p>
<p>Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation.  Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources.  In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer.  To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out <a href='http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&amp;catid=11' rel='nofollow'>http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&amp;catid=11</a> and <a href='http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx' rel='nofollow'>http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx</a></p>
<p>Michael Stuart<br />
<a href='http://www.na-ygn.org/' rel='nofollow'>http://www.na-ygn.org/</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Gerry Wolff</title>
		<link>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-702</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/#comment-702</guid>
					<description>Regarding Helen Caldicott's excellent book "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer" and posting with the same title on this website (2007-02-25), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US (and many other parts of the world) because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US and Canada too. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***" (emphasis added). 

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Helen Caldicott&#8217;s excellent book &#8220;Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer&#8221; and posting with the same title on this website (2007-02-25), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US (and many other parts of the world) because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.</p>
<p>I refer to &#8216;concentrating solar power&#8217; (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.</p>
<p>CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient &#8216;HVDC&#8217; transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US and Canada too. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US &#8220;could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***&#8221; (emphasis added). </p>
<p>In the &#8216;TRANS-CSP&#8217; report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.</p>
<p>Further information about CSP may be found at <a href='http://www.trec-uk.org.uk' rel='nofollow'>www.trec-uk.org.uk</a> and <a href='http://www.trecers.net' rel='nofollow'>www.trecers.net</a> . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from <a href='http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm' rel='nofollow'>www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm</a> . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at <a href='http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm' rel='nofollow'>www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm</a> .
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
