greenenergygirl’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nuclear power is too expensive, too dirty, and too slow to build to be considered a solution to climate change. Uranium mining is just as dirty as coal mining (if not more dirty) and nuclear waste (which we have no long term repository for) lasts for thousands and thousands of years. The only reason that nuclear is included in the current energy legislation is because the industry has bought off many of our leaders to get the nuclear industry the subsidies that it needs to continue. If our leaders have not been bought off, then they may believe some of the "clean and green" propaganda from the industry. Over 10 years ago, the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) National Advertising Division found that the Nuclear Energy Institute's ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. The nuclear industry wouldn't exist without the loan guarantees (the US Office of Management and Budget estimates that the risk of default on these loans is more than 50%!) and other subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers because Wall Street knows that nukes are too risky an investment. So, yes, it would be great if the industry would take on it's own financial risk, but the industry would not exist in this situation. read more about how the climate bill greenwashes nuclear power: http://ow.ly/s9W3 We need real solutions to the climate crisis, which we can implement quickly and cheaply (including the environmental and public health costs and other externalities), in particular energy conservation and efficiency. Nuclear energy is not and never will be a solution to the climate crisis. If we really want to avoid the climate crisis, we must to stop wasting our limited resources to fight climate change on dirty, expensive and slow to implement nuclear power!On New nukes? A fair shot, not a free ride posted 1 week, 3 days ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  yeah

  Right on Trouserdude!On Climate campaigners warm to "advanced coal" and sequestration, despite Bush backing posted 3 years, 11 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nuclear Economics: they just don't work out

  The nuclear power cycle is definitely not "clean"  with mining, storage, disposal, radiation pollution, and the massive amounts of water that are evaporated  or heated, but the most powerful arguement I've heard against nuclear power is its economics.  I find it interesting that you didn't even mention the economics of nuclear in the article.  
  Nuclear power is more expensive than even solar per kWh and takes years to deploy, so it is definitely not a good solution to climate change.  We need to make investments RIGHT NOW in clean, renewable energy technologies that give us the most bang for our buck such as energy efficiency, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and even solar photovoltaic to mitigate climate change.  It is also important to point out that these investments have little risk (very little risk compared to nuclear energy projects, which only seem attract investment when they are proped up by tax payer insurance and other subsidies) and will ensure much more consistent energy prices in the future because the sources of energy are free and abundant.On Is the world ready to waltz with nuclear again? posted 3 years, 11 months ago 10 Responses