Where’s your evidence that nuclear has “gone green”? I read nothing substantive, just arguments that price changes and federal subsidies will “improve” the bottom line for an uncompetitive and irreversibly dangerous industry.

Nuclear electricity is a vastly over-engineered response to our wishes for electrical energy.

Solutions such as efficiency improvements, wind and solar electricity have been gaining steep ground, without generous subsidies, and will always have the moral high ground over nuclear.

Visit Amory Lovins’ Rocky Mountain Institute, and find out about some real answers to our global energy crisis:

http://www.rmi.org/

And ask yourself – if you are downwind of a nuclear reactor targeted by local insurgents or ICBM, if this is what you really want for you, your family, your neighbors, your neighboring countries.

As the atmospheric tests of the ’50’s and ’60’s told us, as Chernobyl reminded us, we all live downwind.

http://limelight.collectik.net/collectik/feed/16069

It may not change your mind but it’s a good solid argument from David Sanbourn Scott.

Smelling Land-The Hydrogen Defense Against Climate Change

Of course waste storage and storage is a difficulty with nuclear power, but it pales in comparison to the damage caused to Earth by drilling, transporting, storing, and burning fossil fuels. Engineers know that there is no perfect answer to any engineering problem; our job is to take the “least worst” and run with it until something better comes along.

I’d like to point out, not what nuclear power will do, but what it WON’T do:

It WON’T release megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change;

It WON’T damage old-growth forest vegetation with acid rain;

It WON’T destroy a major marine ecosystem if a ship carrying uranium ore goes aground; and most importantly…

It WON’T force us to choose between destroying our own northland by drilling — and buying oil from people who don’t like us very much, pushing our balance of trade deficit sky-high, and being the underpinning of our unfortunate and dangerous foreign policies and military adventures in the Mideasst and elsewhere.

Nuclear energy has its problems, but most of them can be met and overcome with sound engineering and careful planning. The same cannot be said of our continued addiction to petroleum.

I believe a University of California Santa Barbara study said that LEDs have to potential of cutting LIGHTING costs by half, but LEDs aren’t going to stop the burning of petroleum products which power the rest of the needs people have.

And, of course, the cost of switching all our lighting appliances to LEDs and the costs involved in scaling LEDs up to the same production rates as incandescent and fluorescent bulbs will be quite high, too.

Again, there’s simply no perfect answer to the Earth’s energy problems, all we can do is pick the “best worst” one.

LEDs will certainly help, but they’re NOT the answer.