<?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: Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lucindamarshall.com/2009/12/09/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lucindamarshall.com/2009/12/09/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/</link>
	<description>LucindaMarshall.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:42:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: RussellLowes</title>
		<link>http://lucindamarshall.com/2009/12/09/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>RussellLowes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lucindamarshall.com/?p=335#comment-62</guid>
		<description>Nice old pictures! That&#039;s my brother Paul with the Yes On 200 shirt! 

What is amazing about the PR of the nuke machine right now is that they have dominated an issue that is not rightly theirs. 

The nuke PR machine has claimed that nukes are low in emissions. In many cases they claim no emissions for nukes. The nuclear cycle is 20-steps long (see my article on this at www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org). 18 of those steps produce CO2. 

And with uranium ore content plummeting, CO2 from mining and milling is skyrocketing. As they mine the best ore, the remaining ore gets lower and lower as a % of uranium. By about 2040, nukes will surpass natural gas for CO2 output. 

Actually when you count the waste management of the legally required million years, the CO2 already exceeds coal. But not even counting that inconvenient fact, nukes are on their way to being one of the biggest CO2 producers. See stormsmith.nl for a great study on this, one of many. 
THANKS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice old pictures! That&#8217;s my brother Paul with the Yes On 200 shirt! </p>
<p>What is amazing about the PR of the nuke machine right now is that they have dominated an issue that is not rightly theirs. </p>
<p>The nuke PR machine has claimed that nukes are low in emissions. In many cases they claim no emissions for nukes. The nuclear cycle is 20-steps long (see my article on this at <a href="http://www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org</a>). 18 of those steps produce CO2. </p>
<p>And with uranium ore content plummeting, CO2 from mining and milling is skyrocketing. As they mine the best ore, the remaining ore gets lower and lower as a % of uranium. By about 2040, nukes will surpass natural gas for CO2 output. </p>
<p>Actually when you count the waste management of the legally required million years, the CO2 already exceeds coal. But not even counting that inconvenient fact, nukes are on their way to being one of the biggest CO2 producers. See stormsmith.nl for a great study on this, one of many.<br />
THANKS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
