<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-our-global-warming-woes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-our-global-warming-woes/</link>
	<description>Corbin Harney's last words. "We are one people. We cannot separate ourselves now.There are many good things to be done for our people and for the world. It is important to let things be good and it is important to teach the younger generation, so that things are not lost."</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:54:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: gregornot</title>
		<link>http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-our-global-warming-woes/#comment-1035</link>
		<dc:creator>gregornot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gregornot.wordpress.com/?p=3305#comment-1035</guid>
		<description>Studies that I have seen, have shown by energy conversation in the US, could offset, all the power that is presently produced by nuke plants. Maybe American will finally wake up to the knowledge, that our lifestyle HAS TO CHANGE, if we are to have any money at all.

Screw the &quot;Drill. Baby,Drill&quot; crap and start using proper insulation on older homes, before those folks start having to live in igloos (during the winter) and I don&#039;t mean in Alaska, but here in the North east and Midwest.

Time for a Change means starting with our own homes, &quot;if their are any left after all the foreclosures&quot;. No matter what Nov. 4th brings, it is up to you and me to solve this problem.

gregor, blog editor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Studies that I have seen, have shown by energy conversation in the US, could offset, all the power that is presently produced by nuke plants. Maybe American will finally wake up to the knowledge, that our lifestyle HAS TO CHANGE, if we are to have any money at all.</p>
<p>Screw the &#8220;Drill. Baby,Drill&#8221; crap and start using proper insulation on older homes, before those folks start having to live in igloos (during the winter) and I don&#8217;t mean in Alaska, but here in the North east and Midwest.</p>
<p>Time for a Change means starting with our own homes, &#8220;if their are any left after all the foreclosures&#8221;. No matter what Nov. 4th brings, it is up to you and me to solve this problem.</p>
<p>gregor, blog editor</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: miggs</title>
		<link>http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-our-global-warming-woes/#comment-1033</link>
		<dc:creator>miggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gregornot.wordpress.com/?p=3305#comment-1033</guid>
		<description>The only one of those strategies you mentioned that cuts both power costs AND greenhouse pollution is cogeneration.  I&#039;m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does precisely that.  And according to DoE and EPA studies, it could reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%.  At the same time, it would cut costs by an estimated $70 billion a year.  So why isn&#039;t more being done?  Simple: regulations are protecting electric utilities, making it hard for more efficient options to emerge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only one of those strategies you mentioned that cuts both power costs AND greenhouse pollution is cogeneration.  I&#8217;m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does precisely that.  And according to DoE and EPA studies, it could reduce greenhouse emissions by 20%.  At the same time, it would cut costs by an estimated $70 billion a year.  So why isn&#8217;t more being done?  Simple: regulations are protecting electric utilities, making it hard for more efficient options to emerge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Global Warming &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes</title>
		<link>http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-our-global-warming-woes/#comment-1011</link>
		<dc:creator>The Global Warming &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gregornot.wordpress.com/?p=3305#comment-1011</guid>
		<description>[...] more from the original source: Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes  Tags: china, Climate Change, global-warming, government, john-mccain, legalese, nuclear, politics, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] more from the original source: Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes  Tags: china, Climate Change, global-warming, government, john-mccain, legalese, nuclear, politics, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
