<?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: Tackling Complex Issues  for New Policymakers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/tackling-complex-issues-for-new-policymakers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/tackling-complex-issues-for-new-policymakers/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jps</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/tackling-complex-issues-for-new-policymakers/comment-page-1/#comment-4066</link>
		<dc:creator>jps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=804#comment-4066</guid>
		<description>Cold Lightning:  I agree that replacing fossil fuel electrical power plants with nuclear base-load in aggregate is good for reducing the damages from increased storm strength inherent in the production of greenhouse gases (and I think carbon sequestration is a pathetic dead end which will never be able to compete with wind on a cents-per-kWh basis.) But I&#039;d like to know why you think that doing so is preferable using the same money for developing wind and solar with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=storing-the-breeze-new-battery-might-make-wind-power-reliable&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;battery&lt;/a&gt; and/or pumped-hydro storage instead.  After all, nuclear is a lot more expensive than wind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cold Lightning:  I agree that replacing fossil fuel electrical power plants with nuclear base-load in aggregate is good for reducing the damages from increased storm strength inherent in the production of greenhouse gases (and I think carbon sequestration is a pathetic dead end which will never be able to compete with wind on a cents-per-kWh basis.) But I&#8217;d like to know why you think that doing so is preferable using the same money for developing wind and solar with <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=storing-the-breeze-new-battery-might-make-wind-power-reliable" rel="nofollow">battery</a> and/or pumped-hydro storage instead.  After all, nuclear is a lot more expensive than wind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold Lightning</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2009/01/tackling-complex-issues-for-new-policymakers/comment-page-1/#comment-4048</link>
		<dc:creator>Cold Lightning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=804#comment-4048</guid>
		<description>There is a real need for a program to mass produce safe and economical nuclear power generators to bridge the gap between the current carbon based generation system and the alternative resources of the future (wind, solar, etc.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a real need for a program to mass produce safe and economical nuclear power generators to bridge the gap between the current carbon based generation system and the alternative resources of the future (wind, solar, etc.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

