Comments on: Mo’ Nukes

By: Gaius

Gaius — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:41:43 +0000

I have no idea how I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out, QM.

By: Quilly Mammoth

Quilly Mammoth — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:15:27 +0000

I’m a little amazed that there hasn’t been much made of the Smithsonian Magazine’s devastating article on Biofuel “Who’s fueling who?”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/presence-biofuel-200711.html

One problem with current subsidies is that they act as if all biofuels were created equal—while some may actually be worse for the environment than conventional gasoline. For instance, corn ethanol on average produces about 13 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline, according to Daniel Kammen, a public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. But when ethanol refineries burn coal to provide heat for fermentation, emissions are up to 20 percent worse for the environment than gasoline. Yet that ethanol still earns the full subsidy.

Virtually every paragraph in the article shows how stupid the Biofool movement is.

By: DavidL

DavidL — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 12:55:41 +0000

If not A, then what? We need energy and nuclear remains the best option. After all, it not like the enviromental wacko are going to trade in their Suburbans for bicycles and turn off their computers.

By: James Aach

James Aach — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:56:32 +0000

As noted here before, your readers might find a look at the insider world of nuclear power from a worker bee’s perspective to be of interest. See “Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power” available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and also in paperback. I’ve been an engineer in the US nuclear industry over twenty years. Its a lot different than most imagine, both good and bad.

By: bill-tb

bill-tb — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:32:22 +0000

I tend to agree, the jury is out on the effects nuclear power plants would have on CO2 derived global warming, if it even exists. But it is undeniable that nuclear energy is safe and will help alleviate the problem of imported fules — We are now importing large quantities of natural gas. This happened ever since Clinton made a monument of the low sulphur coal in the western states. Why we would do this, I assume Clinton knows.

The USA should become the technological leader in nuclear power. The newer PBMR reactors hold the promise of better designed reactors, immune from meltdown, and cannot produce plutonium as an output. A nuclear fuel market in the bargin, since the advances come with a complex fuel pellet.

Will it solve the complete problem, no not likely, but it may solve part of the USA energy problem. Why should we derive 90% of our electricty from nuclear, France does. Drill for the rest. It’s worth noting that China has 100 nuclear plants on the drawing boards … Why don’t we?