AES Blog
Renewable Energy
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Biomass Energy
Geothermal Energy
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Debate
Global Warming
Kyoto Treaty
Hybrid Cars
Free Newsletter
About me
Contact Me
Site Map
Tell Them
Energy Saving
Water Fuel
Green Home
Privacy Policy
Green Movies
Green Ecards
My Secret
Green Investing
Green Work
Energy Audits
Kyoto Protocol

] Subscribe To Alternate Energy Sources.com For A Flourishing Future

Comments for
Go Nuclear Now

Average Rating

Click here to add your own comments

Dec 23, 2007
New energy
by: Steve Carew

At this point in our history I must agree that nuclear energy is quite possibly the present answer. I must in the strongest language disagree that it is a long term answer. Although it is true that nuclear energy is clean the residual pollution (radioactive materials) do not make it a more than stop gap solution. Within the next couple of years there will be a new source of energy on the market on the market within the next couple of years (I know I have invented it). The problem with this new source is 1): it does not pollute in any way, 2): it is meant for the individual home not for a grid system, 3): it will immediately impact on the present day providers or electricity and heating fuels and will eventually put them out of business. If you do not see these as a problem then you must consider that for each week of production of this product the big business fuel/electricity will lose five million dollars per year. inventor47@hotmail.com

Sep 15, 2007
Look At The Facts
by: Rod

I hope it's OK to do this but this is a quote from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL Even Jared Diamond endorses nuclear power to save us from global warming. But some good points are made here against using nuclear energy to fight global warming:

The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.

Sep 15, 2007
No To Nuclear
by: Anonymous

There is nothing irrational about fear of nuclear energy Maree. We only need one nuclear accident to cause radiation harm to millions, and for a long time. And where do we store the mountains of radioactive waste - for generations? Nuclear weapons anyone?

Renewable energy already supplies more energy worldwide than does nuclear energy. Look at Denmark for example with a great government policy on renewable energy that is paying off now. So it's not a matter of waiting for expensive and slow development of renewables.

I am as keen on saving the planet as you but me thinks I am not as emotionally irrational about it as you are.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Nuclear Energy And Global Warming

Return to Go Nuclear Now

footer for alternate energy sources page