Comments on: France: Vive Les Nukes
Add a Comment
- I was wondering were the great journalism of 60 min. was. Clean Nuclear power? What about Platonium, the by product of a Nuclear reactor? The most deadley element, with a half life of 1000's years. Plutonium on the railroads going to Yucca Mountain in NV, 80 miles from the fastest growing metopolotin in the United States. How could you forget this important part of Nuclear Power? Where is all the Plutonium going?
- Reply to this comment
- @renewable
Nice spamming, i guess it is your only argument while you dare to speak of "debate". The claims that you seems to support in the article you quoted are at best irrelevant if not fallacious... - Reply to this comment
- @Killaw. France is not energy independent with uranium- even if they a small mine or 2. Admittedly they are getting it from other nations with a preference on relying on poorer, powerless nations that can be exploited easier. A few more heat waves and France will be using more A/C. The energy industry solution to increased air conditioning demand is to burn oil, coal, and uranium to make steam, throw 80% of the energy into the air as waste heat(counting transmission losses) so we can be cooler in our homes and offices - duh!!! The sun sends 170 trillion kilowatts to the earth on a continuous basis. 30% is reflected, 47% is converted to heat, 23% drives the evaporation/precipitation cycle, 2.1% goes into wind, wave, and get this 1/4 of 1% goes to photosynthesis which is 1.7% efficient and gives us all the plant growth. Solar panels are nearly 10 times as effiient as photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is responsible for all of the oil, coal, and gas we presently use. That's how Brazil's gets alcohol - from the sun via photosynthesis to sugar cane to alcohol. Portugal is on the right track. A 20 story building on 1 square block in Phoenix with solar panel on the roof and south wall will procduce 3000kW of electricity - now that's cool.
- Reply to this comment
- One sided paid commercial for a failed technology new plants costing more than any other source and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.
This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics to convince joe public that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES
http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.
Published: 27 June 2004
Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.
And it Pollutes
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.
http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm
Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007
New Debate Over Nuclear Option
Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst
This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you. - Reply to this comment
- The show incorrectly states that because "nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases that France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world." Clean air is defined by the EPA as concentrations of criteria pollutants: ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and particulates. The primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloro- and flouro- carbons, and sulfur hexaflouride. Ozone is formed primarily by the chemical interaction of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight and not by direct emission. Nuclear power contributes to clean air because it does not emit the criteria pollutants, not because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases contribute to global warming but calling greenhouse gases pollution has confused the public and reporters about clean air.
- Reply to this comment
- One sided paid commercial for a failed technology costing more and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.
This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics ot tonvince joe puplic that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES
http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.
Published: 27 June 2004
Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.
And it Pollutes
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.
http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm
Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007
New Debate Over Nuclear Option
Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst
This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you. - Reply to this comment
- One sided paid commercial for a failed technology costing more and pumping up large engineering and corporate raiders who need charity to survive.
This story repeates lies and distorts facts to pump up a failure and uses scare tactics ot tonvince joe puplic that it will stop global warming and pollution. LIES
http://www.commondrhttp://wwhttp://www.chttp://www.
Published: 27 June 2004
Nuclear power cannot solve global warming, the international body set up to promote atomic energy admits it.
And it Pollutes
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is cited and quoted extensively below.
http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070326_366468.htm
Business Week
Top News March 26, 2007
New Debate Over Nuclear Option
Supporters of nuclear energy say it's a safe, clean alternative to
traditional sources. A new report argues it's not as clean as many think
by Moira Herbst
This so called debate for new plants is simply a scam and a non starter no matter what corporate lackies posing as news stories try to tell you. - Reply to this comment
- Isn't it interesting that the word CONSERVATION did not come up once in your pro-nuclear propaganda piece. Americans represent 5% of the world's population, yet we consume a quarter of the world's energy. Our energy over-consumption and waste is appalling. But here are some facts that your one-sided piece missed entirely:
By taking appropriate energy-saving measures, by 2010 the United States can have an energy system that reduces costs by $530 per household per year and reduces global warming pollutant emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels. (Energy Innovations report)
Just by using the "off the shelf" energy-efficient technologies available today, we could cut the cost of heating, cooling, and lighting our homes and workplaces by up to 80%. (U.S. Department of Energy and Maryland Energy Administration)
Replacing one incandescent lightbulb with an energy-saving compact fluorescent bulb means 1,000 pounds less carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere and $67 dollars is saved on energy costs over the bulb's lifetime. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Alliance to Save Energy)
A decrease of only 1% in industrial energy use would save the equivalent of about 55 million barrels of oil per year, worth about $1 billion.
Why didn't your pro-nuclear piece mention any of these facts?
You owe your viewers an entire program on energy conservation! - Reply to this comment
- Nuclear power would solve virtually all of our energy problems. Relatively quickly. The risks have been overblown. If the French can do it, surely we can do it. Thank heavens our leaders are starting to see the light!!!
Yikes!! With the way Bush has been appointing cronies as department heads while simultaneously underfunding departments to slowly strangle them, we would have our own Chernobyl in no time. - Reply to this comment
- I want to know how in the last year Brazil became oil independent by growing sugarcane, and Portugal just in the last week is able to produce enough electricity for 8000 homes with just 150 acres of solar panels and plans to also become oil independent and have 45 percent of its total energy come from renewable energy by 2010, and we, the United States in all of its glory, is still thinking about nuclear power. Am I missing something?
- Reply to this comment
