<?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: COP21: World must embrace nuclear power to save planet from climate change, claim leading scientists &#124; Environment &#124; The Independent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/05/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-environment-the-independent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/05/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-environment-the-independent/</link>
	<description>All about electronics and circuit design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2026 07:00:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomi Engdahl</title>
		<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/05/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-environment-the-independent/comment-page-1/#comment-1557128</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tomi Engdahl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 03:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=36275#comment-1557128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/

One terrawatt-hour is roughly equivalent to the annual energy consumption of 12,400 US citizens. Although deaths from accidents and air pollution have been combined, it’s important to note that air-pollution related deaths are dominant. In the case of brown coal, coal, oil and gas, they account for greater than 99% of deaths, as well as 70% of nuclear-related deaths4, and all biomass-related deaths.

We can see that brown coal and coal rate the worst when it comes to energy-related fatalities. Coal-fired power plants are a key source of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, key precursors to ozone and particulate matter (PM) pollution, which can have an impact on human health, even at low concentrations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It goes completely against what most believe, but out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest<br />
<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy/</a></p>
<p>One terrawatt-hour is roughly equivalent to the annual energy consumption of 12,400 US citizens. Although deaths from accidents and air pollution have been combined, it’s important to note that air-pollution related deaths are dominant. In the case of brown coal, coal, oil and gas, they account for greater than 99% of deaths, as well as 70% of nuclear-related deaths4, and all biomass-related deaths.</p>
<p>We can see that brown coal and coal rate the worst when it comes to energy-related fatalities. Coal-fired power plants are a key source of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, key precursors to ozone and particulate matter (PM) pollution, which can have an impact on human health, even at low concentrations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomi Engdahl</title>
		<link>https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/05/cop21-world-must-embrace-nuclear-power-to-save-planet-from-climate-change-claim-leading-scientists-environment-the-independent/comment-page-1/#comment-1466115</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tomi Engdahl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=36275#comment-1466115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power
http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/10/184230/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power

Climatologist James Hansen argued last month, &quot;Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.&quot; He is wrong. As the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) explained in a major report last year, in the best-case scenario, nuclear power can play a modest, but important, role in avoiding catastrophic global warming if it can solve its various nagging problems — particularly high construction cost — without sacrificing safety.

Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/07/3736243/nuclear-power-climate-change/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power<br />
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/10/184230/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/01/10/184230/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power</a></p>
<p>Climatologist James Hansen argued last month, &#8220;Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change.&#8221; He is wrong. As the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) explained in a major report last year, in the best-case scenario, nuclear power can play a modest, but important, role in avoiding catastrophic global warming if it can solve its various nagging problems — particularly high construction cost — without sacrificing safety.</p>
<p>Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power<br />
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/07/3736243/nuclear-power-climate-change/" rel="nofollow">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/07/3736243/nuclear-power-climate-change/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
