Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
My problems with your post here are two-fold:

  1. you focus on the last worrying points of the ones I made.

  2. all your sources are from the nuclear industry, and I think frankly that you really need to read a much wider range of (credible) sources, especially when you repeat verbatim as fact highly contestable statements like

"Wind and solar power are great but they cannot by themselves run our civilization and they will always require a backup."

 - as first it deliberately limits the spectrum of renewable Co2 free energy sources and second you provide absolutely not verification for what is a mighty big statement.

  1. you display an ignorance with regard to the water-cycle and the movement of water with regard to one specific example, Yucca Mtn, that also suggests to me that you need to look around a bit more. I don't mean you have to go read the whole gamut of literature, but some basic research will soon inform you that there is literally no such thing as a water-tight aquifer.

  2. the quote you give about Cos2 production saved is firstly not within the context of rebutting whether  nuclear energy is greenhouse neutral, and secondly assumes we'll stick with coal, can't improve coal, etc.


"This can't possibly get more disturbing!" - Willow
by myriad (imogenk at wildmail dot com) on Tue Oct 18th, 2005 at 04:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Carrie 4

Display:

Occasional Series