Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Next week I'll be interviewing journalist William Tucker and seek the assistance of Notes readers: any suggested questions I should ask the author of Terrestrial Energy? You can leave your questions for Mr. Tucker in the comments or email them here.
Comments
He may wish to read Lord Monckton's October 16, 2008, open letter to John McCain to assist in this action.
An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html
The oklo experience shows that actinides move very little, even with moving groundwater, and there is so much radioactive material in the oceans from natural sources that any leakage would be essentially harmless.
http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev102808a.cfm
Also, Widsdom of Crowds is a great book.
Also violates some international agreements and treaties, but who cares?