experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming

[PDJane]

4. Wait until the results from Fukishima come back.

And yes, I have concerns for those people who die from fossil fuels. Coal, for instance, is a dirty and murderous fuel. There is no such thing as 'clean coal.' There is no safe way to recover the stuff, and it is a killer of humans and habitat.

Nuclear energy is expensive; the plants were built to last for forty years and have reached the end of their operating life; most of them are dangerously outmoded and fragile. Those plants are not cheap. When you factor in the number of people who die from cancers and other hazards during mining and waste disposal, nuclear becomes prohibitively expensive. It is GENERALLY safe; however, when the rules are ignored, or human error is factored in, you get things like Fukishima, Mayak, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Moreover, the water needed for this, as much as for coal and gas and other forms, is prohibitive.

I'm also going to point out that using nuclear plants to produce steam to turn turbines is wasteful; if we had been working on other forms of power generation, we would be in a much better place. We haven't.

We need every drop of water we have. Climate change is going to make oceans rise, yes. It is not going to produce rainfall.