<?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: New nuclear energy is old news</title>
	<atom:link href="http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/</link>
	<description>Independent news source for Augusta County, Staunton and Waynesboro, Va.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:15:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Samuel W. Chung</title>
		<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/comment-page-1/#comment-109927</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel W. Chung</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://augustafreepress.com/?p=17859#comment-109927</guid>
		<description>We remember clearly that NRC did not  issue a permit last 20 years, claiming that it is hazardous and dangerous. Now all of sudden nuclear plant is safe, clean and sustainable. What logic is behind  the suddent change of direction?
What about the huge cooling tower which exhaust enormous heat to the earth?
What about the issue of spent fuel storage?
Do you want to store it in your backyard?
Let&#039;s be honest.
We must improve the true sustainable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal plant, we can do it.
NO NUKE !!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We remember clearly that NRC did not  issue a permit last 20 years, claiming that it is hazardous and dangerous. Now all of sudden nuclear plant is safe, clean and sustainable. What logic is behind  the suddent change of direction?<br />
What about the huge cooling tower which exhaust enormous heat to the earth?<br />
What about the issue of spent fuel storage?<br />
Do you want to store it in your backyard?<br />
Let&#8217;s be honest.<br />
We must improve the true sustainable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal plant, we can do it.<br />
NO NUKE !!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Walker</title>
		<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/comment-page-1/#comment-109877</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Walker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://augustafreepress.com/?p=17859#comment-109877</guid>
		<description>where in the nuclear fuel cycle are greenhouse gasses not produced? 

is it in the continuing mining, milling, enriching, containing and storing of uranium to fuel the reactors? is it in the production of huge amounts of concrete and steel need to construct a nuclear power plant? is it in the millions of diesel-burning transport miles by truck and rail to fuel, secure, operate and maintain the facility? is it in the decades-long process of decommissioning a plant that has lived its useful generating life?

no, it is only in the reaction itself, though the industry would have you believe otherwise with its campaign of &quot;greenwashing&quot; that is just as deceptive as their cost-per-kilowatt hour scam that fails to include taxpayer subsidies.

the nuclear reaction is not an autonomous source of energy that exists in a vacuum. there is a huge amount of carbon (and cost and waste) production inherent in the vast infrastructure needed to generate electricity. don&#039;t believe the PR hype.  

nuclear energy does pollute. it does create deadly toxic waste. it cannot exist without taxpayer subsidies and advance rate hikes for plant construction. it is the most complicated, costly and deadly way ever devised to simply boil water for steam and could mean an end meaningful steps toward sustainable energy production rather than a new beginning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>where in the nuclear fuel cycle are greenhouse gasses not produced? </p>
<p>is it in the continuing mining, milling, enriching, containing and storing of uranium to fuel the reactors? is it in the production of huge amounts of concrete and steel need to construct a nuclear power plant? is it in the millions of diesel-burning transport miles by truck and rail to fuel, secure, operate and maintain the facility? is it in the decades-long process of decommissioning a plant that has lived its useful generating life?</p>
<p>no, it is only in the reaction itself, though the industry would have you believe otherwise with its campaign of &#8220;greenwashing&#8221; that is just as deceptive as their cost-per-kilowatt hour scam that fails to include taxpayer subsidies.</p>
<p>the nuclear reaction is not an autonomous source of energy that exists in a vacuum. there is a huge amount of carbon (and cost and waste) production inherent in the vast infrastructure needed to generate electricity. don&#8217;t believe the PR hype.  </p>
<p>nuclear energy does pollute. it does create deadly toxic waste. it cannot exist without taxpayer subsidies and advance rate hikes for plant construction. it is the most complicated, costly and deadly way ever devised to simply boil water for steam and could mean an end meaningful steps toward sustainable energy production rather than a new beginning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/comment-page-1/#comment-109861</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://augustafreepress.com/?p=17859#comment-109861</guid>
		<description>What about nuclear waste?  The cost of handling and storing that stuff, essentially, forever isn&#039;t accounted for.  What about the dangers of proliferation and terrorist targets?  What about the environmental damage of getting the uranium out of the ground?  For the same investment, many more jobs are created funding wind and solar.  This isn&#039;t a column, it is an ad for the nuclear industry.  An industry that cannot stand on its own merits and requires massive public subsidy to even exist.  Private capital will not flow to this industry without the US government taking on all the liability that comes with this hazardous technology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about nuclear waste?  The cost of handling and storing that stuff, essentially, forever isn&#8217;t accounted for.  What about the dangers of proliferation and terrorist targets?  What about the environmental damage of getting the uranium out of the ground?  For the same investment, many more jobs are created funding wind and solar.  This isn&#8217;t a column, it is an ad for the nuclear industry.  An industry that cannot stand on its own merits and requires massive public subsidy to even exist.  Private capital will not flow to this industry without the US government taking on all the liability that comes with this hazardous technology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ridgekeeper</title>
		<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/comment-page-1/#comment-109751</link>
		<dc:creator>Ridgekeeper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://augustafreepress.com/?p=17859#comment-109751</guid>
		<description>We need some type of dependable power.  Coal is bad.  Wind Energy is just a subsidized scam and total energy sprawl.  If we do not do this, we will get further and further behind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need some type of dependable power.  Coal is bad.  Wind Energy is just a subsidized scam and total energy sprawl.  If we do not do this, we will get further and further behind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://augustafreepress.com/2010/02/08/new-nuclear-energy-is-old-news/comment-page-1/#comment-109738</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://augustafreepress.com/?p=17859#comment-109738</guid>
		<description>You just go ahead and spend all that money to build nuclear reactors.  Us private citizens are tired of paying for utilities and we plan to be totally self sufficient, putting you out of business, and wasting your money.  Since you will not listen to the people, you are destined to pay for your mistakes soon enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You just go ahead and spend all that money to build nuclear reactors.  Us private citizens are tired of paying for utilities and we plan to be totally self sufficient, putting you out of business, and wasting your money.  Since you will not listen to the people, you are destined to pay for your mistakes soon enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

