<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Candidates spar on who has most more comprehensive vision]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:03:02 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>He was about to say..</strong></p><p>"What I've said I have concerns about safe storage."</p><p>
...That McCain opposes waste storage in his home state of Arizona. &nbsp;Put it in someone eleses' back yard John?</p><p>
Or should we spur the nuclear industry to recycle and neutralize the waste? &nbsp;Safely, in place in sealed reactor vessels. &nbsp;Without dangerous, astronomically expensive transport and handling and 10,000 year storage facilities.</p><p>
Once they put the radioactive fuel in the heating element it should be designed to use the fuel completely and leave the sealed unit safe to rest in place.</p><p>
It has to be sealed to keep anyone from getting any of the fuel out at anytime during it's radioactive lifetime. &nbsp;It's the only feasible way to protexct from proliferation, terrorism, accidents, and so forth.</p><p>
A sealed vessel that heats an energy transport fluid like water, without rendering it radioactive. &nbsp;Designed in safety from ever reaching critical mass or leaking because of pressure or heat.</p><p>
Can it be done? &nbsp;And done economically? &nbsp;If not, the only nuclear power that is safe and effective for power generation is on the Sun. &nbsp;Used at a safe distance with solar, wind, wave, ocean current, biogas, and river flow power generation.</p><p>
Ocean current power and tidal current power are &nbsp;different, these are powered by planetary motion. &nbsp;As are prevailing wind patterns, that in turn power ocean currents.</p><p>
The steady power of the Gulf stream is powered by Earth rotation. &nbsp;Good backup power.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>He was about to say..</strong></p><p>"What I've said I have concerns about safe storage."</p><p>
...That McCain opposes waste storage in his home state of Arizona. &nbsp;Put it in someone eleses' back yard John?</p><p>
Or should we spur the nuclear industry to recycle and neutralize the waste? &nbsp;Safely, in place in sealed reactor vessels. &nbsp;Without dangerous, astronomically expensive transport and handling and 10,000 year storage facilities.</p><p>
Once they put the radioactive fuel in the heating element it should be designed to use the fuel completely and leave the sealed unit safe to rest in place.</p><p>
It has to be sealed to keep anyone from getting any of the fuel out at anytime during it's radioactive lifetime. &nbsp;It's the only feasible way to protexct from proliferation, terrorism, accidents, and so forth.</p><p>
A sealed vessel that heats an energy transport fluid like water, without rendering it radioactive. &nbsp;Designed in safety from ever reaching critical mass or leaking because of pressure or heat.</p><p>
Can it be done? &nbsp;And done economically? &nbsp;If not, the only nuclear power that is safe and effective for power generation is on the Sun. &nbsp;Used at a safe distance with solar, wind, wave, ocean current, biogas, and river flow power generation.</p><p>
Ocean current power and tidal current power are &nbsp;different, these are powered by planetary motion. &nbsp;As are prevailing wind patterns, that in turn power ocean currents.</p><p>
The steady power of the Gulf stream is powered by Earth rotation. &nbsp;Good backup power.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by amazingdrx</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:18:01 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>&quot;...one long bridge&quot;</strong></p><p>(to nowhere) Kate! &nbsp;Hehey. &nbsp;Hmmm, there's a bumpersticker there somewhere. &nbsp;</p><p>
(We could split the profits?)</p><p>
It will only lower gas prices three cents per gallon. &nbsp;I realized looking at a power tool catalogue, that spare batteries are being sold at around 2 dollars per watt of storage.</p><p>
That puts your average daily one way commute at around 3000 dollars of batteries, at retail prices. &nbsp;I'm thinking that mass production would reduce that retail price to around one dollar per watt hour.</p><p>
These kind of hi-tech lithium batteries charge in an hour or so. &nbsp;You can plugin at work, shopping, school. &nbsp;Even a 15 mile range plugin hybrid with 1500 dollars worth of batteries could cover the average trip.</p><p>
There is no excuse not to build this bridge to renewable electric transportation. &nbsp;We need to build about 1000 more factories making these batteries. &nbsp;I bet lots of americans would welcome a job building and operating these factories.</p><p>
"Calin/McPain..building/drill, drill, drilling one long bridge...to nowhere!"</p><p>
Yep, good bumpersticker.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>&quot;...one long bridge&quot;</strong></p><p>(to nowhere) Kate! &nbsp;Hehey. &nbsp;Hmmm, there's a bumpersticker there somewhere. &nbsp;</p><p>
(We could split the profits?)</p><p>
It will only lower gas prices three cents per gallon. &nbsp;I realized looking at a power tool catalogue, that spare batteries are being sold at around 2 dollars per watt of storage.</p><p>
That puts your average daily one way commute at around 3000 dollars of batteries, at retail prices. &nbsp;I'm thinking that mass production would reduce that retail price to around one dollar per watt hour.</p><p>
These kind of hi-tech lithium batteries charge in an hour or so. &nbsp;You can plugin at work, shopping, school. &nbsp;Even a 15 mile range plugin hybrid with 1500 dollars worth of batteries could cover the average trip.</p><p>
There is no excuse not to build this bridge to renewable electric transportation. &nbsp;We need to build about 1000 more factories making these batteries. &nbsp;I bet lots of americans would welcome a job building and operating these factories.</p><p>
"Calin/McPain..building/drill, drill, drilling one long bridge...to nowhere!"</p><p>
Yep, good bumpersticker.

<p>http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog     John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin </p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Bob Wallace</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:48:04 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>McCain and waste...<p>McCain is in favor of storing nuclear waste in Nevada.<p>
But he is opposed to transporting it through Arizona to get it there.<p>
--- <p>
Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? &nbsp;McCain (Shaking Head): "No, I would not. No, I would not."<p>
<a href="http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/mccain_wants_to_send_nuclear_waste_through_ohio_but_not_az" rel="nofollow">http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/mccain_wants_to_send_nucl ...<p>
--</p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>McCain and waste...<p>McCain is in favor of storing nuclear waste in Nevada.<p>
But he is opposed to transporting it through Arizona to get it there.<p>
--- <p>
Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? &nbsp;McCain (Shaking Head): "No, I would not. No, I would not."<p>
<a href="http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/mccain_wants_to_send_nuclear_waste_through_ohio_but_not_az" rel="nofollow">http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/mccain_wants_to_send_nucl ...<p>
--</p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by Susan Kraemer</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:57:52 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/debate-the-big-picture-on-energy/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Someone has to get the truth out about McCain </strong></p><p>I am so glad to hear Obama called McCain on his voting record against renewables - I missed some of the debate, and it seemed much too soft-hitting...</p><p>
For a man who voted 42 out of 44 times with Inhofe, he would have to be a complete sociopath to believe that he could make the media think he's a green candidate. </p><p>
Yet he does.</p><p>
By contrast, Obama's votes were all with Barbara Boxer's. Even though I don't like some of his dirty language (clean coal, nuclear) the votes are the bottom line. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Someone has to get the truth out about McCain </strong></p><p>I am so glad to hear Obama called McCain on his voting record against renewables - I missed some of the debate, and it seemed much too soft-hitting...</p><p>
For a man who voted 42 out of 44 times with Inhofe, he would have to be a complete sociopath to believe that he could make the media think he's a green candidate. </p><p>
Yet he does.</p><p>
By contrast, Obama's votes were all with Barbara Boxer's. Even though I don't like some of his dirty language (clean coal, nuclear) the votes are the bottom line. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>