<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Time To Take Nuclear Power Off the Table?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/</link>
	<description>Sea Level Rise Expert</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-186</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-186</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-184&quot;&gt;Barry Heimlich&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Interesting and has some&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interesting and has some merit. Yet we need to realize that the Keeling curve annual change reflects the dead of winter for the entire northern hemisphere. And to get to your scenario of stable CO2, so that photosynthesis can act to remove it, we have to essentially STOP the increase in CO2, before stabilizing it. Given the present increasing rates of CO2 emissions, the increasing need for energy for a growing population, the scenario you describe does not seem to undermine the need to keep nuclear &#039;on the table&#039; for the next few decades.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-184">Barry Heimlich</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Interesting and has some</strong></p>
<p>Interesting and has some merit. Yet we need to realize that the Keeling curve annual change reflects the dead of winter for the entire northern hemisphere. And to get to your scenario of stable CO2, so that photosynthesis can act to remove it, we have to essentially STOP the increase in CO2, before stabilizing it. Given the present increasing rates of CO2 emissions, the increasing need for energy for a growing population, the scenario you describe does not seem to undermine the need to keep nuclear &#39;on the table&#39; for the next few decades.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Brian		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-185</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2015 02:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-185</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;yes take nuclear off the table.  &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nuclear power is a dead end in so may ways.  
search lazard energy version 8 if that does not work.  Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.  
See lazard energy version 8  
We need to go solar, wind, hydro, waste to energy and fuels from air,water and electricity as fast as possible. 
We are facing peak coal, oil and nuclear way sooner than we thought.

The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast. 
Pub1104_scr.pdf  
&quot;As we look to the future, presently known resources
fall short of demand.&quot; 
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025   and it going  1/4 of that  2050
fig 20 also show shortfall.  


Nuclear power plant emissions, accidents, disasters, mining, and wastes will causes million of cancers.   The billion dollar per year nuclear industry pr campaign and the captive gov promoting nuclear refuse to use LNT in the predictions, and refuse to acknowledge the studies that show millions of cancers.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>yes take nuclear off the table.  </strong><br />Nuclear power is a dead end in so may ways.<br />
search lazard energy version 8 if that does not work.  Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.<br />
See lazard energy version 8<br />
We need to go solar, wind, hydro, waste to energy and fuels from air,water and electricity as fast as possible.<br />
We are facing peak coal, oil and nuclear way sooner than we thought.</p>
<p>The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.<br />
Pub1104_scr.pdf<br />
&#8220;As we look to the future, presently known resources<br />
fall short of demand.&#8221;<br />
Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025   and it going  1/4 of that  2050<br />
fig 20 also show shortfall.  </p>
<p>Nuclear power plant emissions, accidents, disasters, mining, and wastes will causes million of cancers.   The billion dollar per year nuclear industry pr campaign and the captive gov promoting nuclear refuse to use LNT in the predictions, and refuse to acknowledge the studies that show millions of cancers.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Heimlich		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-184</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Heimlich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 22:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-184</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-182&quot;&gt;Barry Heimlich&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Reducing CO2 in the Atmosphere&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One additional thought - I think that, once ghg emissions are substantially reduced, that the primary mechanism of reducing CO2 levels will be through photosynthesis by the biosphere. This is by far the most energy efficient process of consuming and sequestering CO2. It is amazing to see how CO2 levels cycle seasonally on the Keeling Curve when CO2 levels drop by about 10 ppm during spring and summer in the Northern Hemisphere. What would happen if human ghg emissions were reduced significantly? I expect that man could help it along too my planting trees, growing algae, and other agricultural and land use means. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-182">Barry Heimlich</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Reducing CO2 in the Atmosphere</strong><br />One additional thought &#8211; I think that, once ghg emissions are substantially reduced, that the primary mechanism of reducing CO2 levels will be through photosynthesis by the biosphere. This is by far the most energy efficient process of consuming and sequestering CO2. It is amazing to see how CO2 levels cycle seasonally on the Keeling Curve when CO2 levels drop by about 10 ppm during spring and summer in the Northern Hemisphere. What would happen if human ghg emissions were reduced significantly? I expect that man could help it along too my planting trees, growing algae, and other agricultural and land use means. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-183</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-183</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-181&quot;&gt;Barry Heimlich&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Thanks Barry for both of your&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks Barry for both of your thoughtful comments.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-181">Barry Heimlich</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Thanks Barry for both of your</strong></p>
<p>Thanks Barry for both of your thoughtful comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Heimlich		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-182</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Heimlich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:37:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-182</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-176&quot;&gt;Glenn Klotz&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Concrete for nuclear plants; removing CO2 from the atmosphere&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For the record, the amount of CO2 generated to make the concrete to build or decommission a nuclear plant is infinitesimal. Most of your arguments have merit, but it weakens your case when they are exaggerated. As a chemical engineer, I can also tell you that according to the science of thermodynamics, CO2 has one of lowest energy levels of all carbon compounds. Consequently, it takes energy and other consumables to absorb CO2 or to convert it to anything else that might be of use. Therefore, in order to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations, which as you rightly say  is necessary to reverse global warming, we must first substantially eliminate the ongoing sources of CO2 and also methane.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-176">Glenn Klotz</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Concrete for nuclear plants; removing CO2 from the atmosphere</strong><br />For the record, the amount of CO2 generated to make the concrete to build or decommission a nuclear plant is infinitesimal. Most of your arguments have merit, but it weakens your case when they are exaggerated. As a chemical engineer, I can also tell you that according to the science of thermodynamics, CO2 has one of lowest energy levels of all carbon compounds. Consequently, it takes energy and other consumables to absorb CO2 or to convert it to anything else that might be of use. Therefore, in order to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations, which as you rightly say  is necessary to reverse global warming, we must first substantially eliminate the ongoing sources of CO2 and also methane.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Heimlich		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-181</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Heimlich]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:17:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-181</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Reversing Global Warming is Priority #1&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-- I agree with John that nuclear power is a necessary part of the energy portfolio. Of course, as much solar, wind and other renewables should be deployed as possible, but we will always need baseline power and so far nuclear is the only practical CO2-free way of providing it. We should use the latest and best of modern reactor designs, and new nuclear plants should be located where they are at minuscule risks of major natural disasters (Turkey Point is not a good choice). The fact is that nuclear power creates radioactive waste and like coal and gas requires a lot of cooling water, but these factors are manageable. Thorium has a lot of promise and its development should be accelerated. 
-- As far as fusion is concerned, when I was in engineering school in the early 1960&#039;s - over 50 years ago - I visited the fusion laboratory at Princeton. Fifty years have gone by and generating power at scale from fusion is still very, very far away. I think that controlling and containing a fusion plasma will not be without significant potential hazards. Fusion may be an impossible dream. 
-- There is no panacea. We have to make smart choices based on reality, not pipe dreams, and we have to make them now while there&#039;s still time. We know that nuclear works; we have learned a lot from previous mistakes, there are better reactor designs and promising new technologies for the future. We have to get on with the task of substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions with what we know works and where the hazards can be managed. The #1 priority must be reversing the ever-growing hazards of global warming while there&#039;s still time to avert catastrophe. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Reversing Global Warming is Priority #1</strong><br />&#8212; I agree with John that nuclear power is a necessary part of the energy portfolio. Of course, as much solar, wind and other renewables should be deployed as possible, but we will always need baseline power and so far nuclear is the only practical CO2-free way of providing it. We should use the latest and best of modern reactor designs, and new nuclear plants should be located where they are at minuscule risks of major natural disasters (Turkey Point is not a good choice). The fact is that nuclear power creates radioactive waste and like coal and gas requires a lot of cooling water, but these factors are manageable. Thorium has a lot of promise and its development should be accelerated.<br />
&#8212; As far as fusion is concerned, when I was in engineering school in the early 1960&#8217;s &#8211; over 50 years ago &#8211; I visited the fusion laboratory at Princeton. Fifty years have gone by and generating power at scale from fusion is still very, very far away. I think that controlling and containing a fusion plasma will not be without significant potential hazards. Fusion may be an impossible dream.<br />
&#8212; There is no panacea. We have to make smart choices based on reality, not pipe dreams, and we have to make them now while there&#8217;s still time. We know that nuclear works; we have learned a lot from previous mistakes, there are better reactor designs and promising new technologies for the future. We have to get on with the task of substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions with what we know works and where the hazards can be managed. The #1 priority must be reversing the ever-growing hazards of global warming while there&#8217;s still time to avert catastrophe. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-180</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-180</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-179&quot;&gt;Charles Whalen&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Sweden going off nuclear&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the article about Sweden. News to me. Very interesting and relevant.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-179">Charles Whalen</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Sweden going off nuclear</strong></p>
<p>Thanks for the article about Sweden. News to me. Very interesting and relevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Charles Whalen		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-179</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charles Whalen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-179</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;interesting related article&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here&#039;s an interesting related article published a couple days ago: &lt;a href=&quot;http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Swedens-Nuclear-Shutdown-A-Sign-Of-Whats-To-Come.html&quot;&gt;Sweden’s Nuclear Shutdown A Sign Of What’s To Come&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>interesting related article</strong></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an interesting related article published a couple days ago: <a href="http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Swedens-Nuclear-Shutdown-A-Sign-Of-Whats-To-Come.html">Sweden’s Nuclear Shutdown A Sign Of What’s To Come</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-178</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2015 02:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/wp/wp/sea-level-rise-blog/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-178</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-176&quot;&gt;Glenn Klotz&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;strong&gt;Nuclear — concerns&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p&gt;Glenn — you raise many valid concerns. Any new coastal plants need to be built taking strong account of sea level rise adding to the risk of storm surge. Good that you are aware of thorium which is promising. See the message from Mel above and my reply. The issue about storing waste is probably not nearly as serious as we have been led to believe. The iconic James Lovelock — one of my gurus — made that point years ago, in his seminal book, &#039;The Revenge of Gaia.&#039; As a more practical example the French have used nuclear as a dominant source of power for a half century. They dispose of their waste through a &#039;glassification&#039; method and offered the technology to us several decades ago, but we turned it down. We wanted to solve it &quot;American style&quot; in the huge Yucca Mountain style, which in the end turned into a fiasco or boondoggle. Setting all that aside, you and I are clear that the warming is the thing that will change everything, starting with a large increase in sea level. My priority is energy solutions that do not add to GHG. As I think I made clear, my opinion is that we cannot afford to take nuclear off the table due to the short term effects on warming. I stand by that, but certainly respect your thoughtful and informed slightly different position.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/time-to-take-nuclear-power-off-the-table/#comment-176">Glenn Klotz</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Nuclear — concerns</strong></p>
<p>Glenn — you raise many valid concerns. Any new coastal plants need to be built taking strong account of sea level rise adding to the risk of storm surge. Good that you are aware of thorium which is promising. See the message from Mel above and my reply. The issue about storing waste is probably not nearly as serious as we have been led to believe. The iconic James Lovelock — one of my gurus — made that point years ago, in his seminal book, &#8216;The Revenge of Gaia.&#8217; As a more practical example the French have used nuclear as a dominant source of power for a half century. They dispose of their waste through a &#8216;glassification&#8217; method and offered the technology to us several decades ago, but we turned it down. We wanted to solve it &#8220;American style&#8221; in the huge Yucca Mountain style, which in the end turned into a fiasco or boondoggle. Setting all that aside, you and I are clear that the warming is the thing that will change everything, starting with a large increase in sea level. My priority is energy solutions that do not add to GHG. As I think I made clear, my opinion is that we cannot afford to take nuclear off the table due to the short term effects on warming. I stand by that, but certainly respect your thoughtful and informed slightly different position.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>