Saying: "[Nuclear energy is] not a solution to climate change" based on the citation from Business Week is completely inaccurate. All this article says is that some amount of petroleum is used in procurement of uranium. Due to the energy density of uranium, procurement costs (in petroleum) are probably significantly less than the amount of energy required to deliver coal, oil or natural gas. With any other energy source, these procurement pollutants are just the beginning - a tiny percent of the total pollution caused by use. However, with nuclear, you get all the energy released without a single molecule of greenhouse gasses released. Yes, you then have to stick the stuff back in an underground vault, but the pollution involved in this is again negligible relative to pollutants produced in burning fossil fuels. Yes, sticking radioactive waste in vaults is risky for us and risky for the environment, but at least it is under our control where greenhouse gases obviously are not.

The article estimates the costs clearly in the following stats: “Coal, the primary source of electric power in the U.S., produces 755 grams of carbon per kilowatt hour, the range for nuclear is between 10 and 150 grams per kilowatt hour. Wind power is 11 to 37 grams.”

No energy source (not even fusion) is going to be perfect, but we must work to find the least bad option.

Correct - there really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .

CSP from North Africa or the Middle East ??? In a political vacuum this might be a good idea but it will just perpetuate corruptions, wars etc that we have now with oil. It might cut down the greenhouse gasses while we fight but I think the risk of war escalating to planet wide Nuclear pollution are greater than with nuclear power stations. If only the world wasn't full of greedy, corrupt, wasteful people it would be so easy! Don't get me wrong I hope we an make progress with CSP but in the end our big problem is waste, waste caused by our culture of laziness crime, hedonism. I wonder for instance what is the carbon footprint of the sexual revolution which has brought aids and the multi billion pound industry promoting promiscuity and providing drugs to keep people alive to indulge in these practices. You could add to that the resulting waste of broken families with the higher carbon cost of single people dwellings and further the waste caused by the increasing crime caused by the disadvantaged kids coming from these families. Morality is really the only green way.

Obvious solution, electric cars, and motors using ultracapacitors, and powered by nuclear factories. 0 carbon. fin.

I think this article is correct, we should switch to a pure nuclear system to minimize waste, and solar reflectors would take a ridiculous amount of water transfer and the science of long range voltage systems would mean ridiculous high voltages specially without cities inbetween removing power. Super vulnerable to attack since its such a long span.

lastly, sneaking up the side of a building isnt hard, try sneaking into it next time, you know whre the real dangerous stuff is kept instead of where there is no way you can do any damage, I doubt most people have alarms that detect motion beside their house, but try getting inside it and you'll see what I mean.

Use science not superstition, its why people stop taking environmentalists seriously.

I'd just like to point out that nuclear power plants can shut down by draining the moderator and disrupting the critical mass in a matter of a fraction of a second. Even if anyone gets inside, barring the fact that they themselves have a very very large capacity of explosives, there is very little that they could actually do to cause any kind of harm to anyone on the outside. Three Mile Island is a great example... although there was a huge problem, the radioactivity was contained inside systems that worked as they were supposed to. There is so much redundancy in the safety systems, 2 or 3 systems for every conciveable problem, that realistically there is no chance that there will be another chernobyl unless many of these safety systems all fail at the same time coupled with an operator error.

Nuclear energy is not the enemy. It is far safer than oil, natural gas and definitley coal, and is realistic, as opposed to wind and solar. We really should be supporting the nuclear industry more if we want to maintain our current standards for quality of life.

Outstanding information!! will come back:D