China Emissions Forecast To Double

China is at least on board to fighting its pollution. So Wong I don't think that Julie Whitty is against China or Chinese?we need to work together to solve these issues (well the whole world must and I think that Julie Whitty is a strong supporter of that kind of a movement). Americans will continue to buy Chinese goods for the simple reason that China makes a lot good stuff but more of the profits must go towards producing these products in a more environmentally sound way. So Chill out Wong and take a compliment?it's the pollution not China or Chinese

When John McCain says he will build 44 nuclear power plants it is obvious that McCain is an economic retard?but I think Americans know this already. It is in fact the economics of nuclear power that make it a no brainer in terms of using it as an answer to solving our energy problems. Nuclear Power is a dead end! Those who advocate nuclear power are either ignorant or liars.

Longtime nuclear commentator Walter C. Patterson noted in 2006 that "Those suffering from nuclear amnesia have forgotten why nuclear power faded from the energy scene in the first place, how many times it has failed to deliver, how often it has disappointed its most determined advocates, how extravagantly it has squandered unparalleled, unstinting support from taxpayers around the world, leaving them with burdens that may last for millennia." His thorough demolition of today's generally recycled nuclear arguments is at www.waltpatterson.org.

To say it as simply as possible?no nuclear power plant on the earth has ever been financed by private risk capital because it is a lose, lose scenario. The movement towards greater government transparency will show beyond all shadow of doubt that nuclear power is uneconomical.

The Economist observed in 200110 that "Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter"?cheap to run but very expensive to build. Since then, it has become severalfold costlier still to build?and in a few years, as old fuel contracts expire, it is also expected to become severalfold costlier to run. As we'll see, its total cost now markedly exceeds that of other common power plants (coal, gas, big wind farms), let alone the even cheaper competitors described below?cogeneration, some further renewables, and efficient end-use of electricity. Higher fossil-fuel prices since 2001 haven't improved nuclear power's economic case, for two reasons: its own costs have risen even more (its actual fossil-fuel competitors don't include oil), and its formidable new competitors use little or no fossil fuel and generally exhibit falling, not rising, prices.

(I would suggest that everyone who is concerned with these kinds of issues read the excellent report made by Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh "The Nuclear Illusion" over at the Rocky Mountain Institute. This 52 page article puts the nuclear industry into a clear perspective.)

Another aspect is proliferation where even if the security surrounding plutonium was 99% secure there would be enough leakage to make a Hiroshima sized bomb a week. So if we claim that we are against the proliferation of nuclear weapons then we had better examine this aspect of the nuclear business thoroughly?this will only add to the cost and to the industry's risk.

Meanwhile, Autism Risk Linked To Distance From Power Plants, Other Mercury-releasing Sources (2008-ScienceDaily).

So..., we're out-sourcing childhood mortality, or what???

How about how Ethanol vehicles pose significant risk to health, new study finds (2007-Stanford News Service)

Then there's Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break (Boston Globe)

Evidently, Animal House was an accurate appellation...

WHAT???????!!!!!!!!!

China is at least on board to fighting its pollution. So Wong I don't think that Julie Whitty is against China or Chinese—we need to work together to solve these issues (well the whole world must and I think that Julie Whitty is a strong supporter of that kind of a movement). Americans will continue to buy Chinese goods for the simple reason that China makes a lot good stuff but more of the profits must go towards producing these products in a more environmentally sound way. So Chill out Wong and take a compliment—it's the pollution not China or Chinese

When John McCain says he will build 44 nuclear power plants it is obvious that McCain is an economic retard—but I think Americans know this already. It is in fact the economics of nuclear power that make it a no brainer in terms of using it as an answer to solving our energy problems. Nuclear Power is a dead end! Those who advocate nuclear power are either ignorant or liars.

Longtime nuclear commentator Walter C. Patterson noted in 2006 that "Those suffering from nuclear amnesia have forgotten why nuclear power faded from the energy scene in the first place, how many times it has failed to deliver, how often it has disappointed its most determined advocates, how extravagantly it has squandered unparalleled, unstinting support from taxpayers around the world, leaving them with burdens that may last for millennia." His thorough demolition of today's generally recycled nuclear arguments is at www.waltpatterson.org.

To say it as simply as possible—no nuclear power plant on the earth has ever been financed by private risk capital because it is a lose, lose scenario. The movement towards greater government transparency will show beyond all shadow of doubt that nuclear power is uneconomical.

The Economist observed in 200110 that "Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter"—cheap to run but very expensive to build. Since then, it has become severalfold costlier still to build—and in a few years, as old fuel contracts expire, it is also expected to become severalfold costlier to run. As we'll see, its total cost now markedly exceeds that of other common power plants (coal, gas, big wind farms), let alone the even cheaper competitors described below—cogeneration, some further renewables, and efficient end-use of electricity. Higher fossil-fuel prices since 2001 haven't improved nuclear power's economic case, for two reasons: its own costs have risen even more (its actual fossil-fuel competitors don't include oil), and its formidable new competitors use little or no fossil fuel and generally exhibit falling, not rising, prices.

(I would suggest that everyone who is concerned with these kinds of issues read the excellent report made by Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh "The Nuclear Illusion" over at the Rocky Mountain Institute. This 52 page article puts the nuclear industry into a clear perspective.)

Another aspect is proliferation where even if the security surrounding plutonium was 99% secure there would be enough leakage to make a Hiroshima sized bomb a week. So if we claim that we are against the proliferation of nuclear weapons then we had better examine this aspect of the nuclear business thoroughly—this will only add to the cost and to the industry's risk.