What is a green reactor? It is a gaseous reactor that uses a uranium gas as fuel. It is beyond the laws of nature for this type of reactor to ever undergo a nuclear meltdown. A gaseous, green reactor will also produce its own uranium fuel.

A green reactor will produce electricity at an overall cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour including amortization. The national average for electrical energy to the consumer is approximately 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Green reactors do not use water. Water reactors should have never been permitted as a nuclear reactor design. Whenever a liquid is used as a moderator or coolant in a nuclear reactor, there is a lower margin of safety.

Today, tritium, which is a radioactive isotope hydrogen and found in water, is leaking into the sewer system from a pressurized water reactor near New York City. Nuclear and water don't mix.

A green reactor has no equal in terms of nuclear safety.

If a conventional nuclear power plant hiccups, there is a possibility of a nuclear meltdown as a result of a loss of coolant accident. If a green reactor hiccups, it passes gas into a contained, controlled environment. Please remember that the containment systems at Three Mile Island worked. In a green reactor, gaseous fuel would easily be recovered and reused from the containment system whereas a reactor using solid fuel will remain in the failed core for several years after a severe accident. Again, water should not be used as a reactor moderator or coolant.

The most important lesson learned from Chernobyl is the reactor physics must be such that the core has a negative reactivity temperature coefficient. This will naturally shutdown the nuclear reaction if core temperature rises above a specified temperature.

A green reactor is absolutely remarkable in radiological terms. Gases produced by fission remain in a green reactor to assist with energy conversion. Liquid and solid radioactive waste are extracted routinely during normal operations. These wastes will be glassified for disposal or packaged for use upon removal. Because there is no nuclear spent fuel contained in the extracted waste, there are fewer long-term storage problems associated with a green reactor. Handling solid spent fuel will always be more hazardous than handling gaseous fuel.

Also, a green reactor is the least-likely contributor to nuclear proliferation or terrorism. Let the scoundrels try to put gas in their pockets.

Economically, green reactors will produce electrical energy very inexpensively. As a result, they will pay for a first-rate healthcare program, fund public education, and still lower the electric costs to the consumer. This is a measure of true prosperity to all.

Green reactors may also offer a pathway to a controlled fusion process.

The single, most fundamental, lesson learned from Three Mile Island is not to trust big business with nuclear power.

It is time that our state governments should assume the responsibility of producing electricity from nuclear energy. Energy is the life-blood of our society, our economy, and our government. It is our duty to provide for the common defense and the betterment of our world. Secure, sustainable energy is a paramount to our way of life.

We humans have three needs when it comes to the use of energy: to heat our homes, to cook our food, and to power our vehicles. Just three, that's all, no more, no less.

Today, we live in a world of the butterfly effect with respect to chemical and thermal pollution. If someone in Asia burns a gallon of gasoline, combustion will release 19 pounds mass of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and, at the same time, it will remove nearly 21 pounds of oxygen from the atmosphere. We humans all share the atmosphere with all life.

In terms of the production of carbon dioxide per unit heat energy, gasoline produces 150 pounds mass per million BTU; natural gas produces 330 pounds mass per million BTU; and coal produces 650 pounds per million BTU. The combustion of ethanol produces 152 pounds mass per million BTU.

Some people believe that we can use less energy. As a society, we are would be hard-pressed to use less energy. The past thirty years or so have been devoted to energy-saving technology. But, at the same time, technology has brought more energy-consuming gadgets to our lives.

Nuclear energy is an option that cannot be overlooked. But there are some concerns which need to be addressed.

Safety is a paramount concern to all. A nuclear power plant cannot create a nuclear explosion. Nuclear power plants lack the quantity of fissile material to cause a nuclear explosion.

The nuclear reactor at Chernobyl had a significant design flaw: As the reactor temperature increased, so did the rate of the nuclear reaction. This characteristic is not allowed in reactor designs today. Increases in temperature above the normal operating reactor temperature cause the nuclear reaction rate to decrease and shut the reactor down.

Of course, nuclear waste is also a concern. But let us understand there are other sources of nuclear waste. And let us understand the quantity of radioactive material that the nuclear fission creates in terms of megawatts of power. To power a nuclear power plant for 25 years which produces 120 MW of electrical power will consume less than 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of fissile material. The amount of nuclear waste generated directly by this hypothetical facility is about 10 kilograms. The amount of nuclear waste by incident neutron radiation may approach 10 times the direct amount. Thus, this facility would generate a little over 100 kilograms of radioactive waste.

Let's take this hypothetical plant another step and ask the question how much carbon dioxide would be released to the atmosphere if we burned coal instead. First, we assume that the thermal energy required to produce electrical energy is an approximate ratio of 3:1. Or, in this case, we will need 360 MW of thermal energy which will produce 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the same 25 years. Also, this process would remove about the same amount of oxygen from the atmosphere as well.

A "green" reactor has been designed that may produce energy as cheaply as  3 cents per kWh. The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh. Maybe these new nukes could finance a viable national health care program as well as fund public education and teachers' salaries.

Are volcanoes really responsible for large levels of carbon dioxide ?

The combustion of one gallon of gasoline (octane) will replace 21.6 pounds mass of oxygen with 19 pounds mass of carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere.

We humans combust approximately 500 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This results in the atmospheric exchange of 5.2 billion tonnes of oxygen with 4.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide yearly. Add to this figure the 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide we humans respirate on an annual basis. Altogether, we humans are responsible for the production of 6.7 billion tonnes of CO2 per year via respiration and transportaion.

According to the US Geological Survey, volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

The human production of carbon dioxide from respiration and gasoline combustion is 50 times the amount released by volcanoes.

It is 30 Deg F here at 12:51 am on January 6, 2007. There is no snow cover on the ground.

Source of global warming is ultimately the sun. Without the sun, our small, insignificant
planet Earth would be adrift in cold, empty space. Its only heat would come from whatever heat remained from its creation or from whatever is generated within it.

It has been hypothesized that greenhouse gases trap solar insolation the Earth receives from the sun. Carbon dioxide is one of the heaviest gases in the atmosphere. As a gas, concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) hold close to ground level. Thus, this blanketing effect then causes blackbody radiation to be entrapped near the earth's surface. Blackbody radiation is emitted from the earth when its surface is away from the Sun.

The best evidence of global warming is not in the rise of global temperatures but in the loss of perennial snow and glaciers.

The earth's albedo is a ratio of solar energy reflected back into space and blackbody radiation emitted at night to the total incident solar energy received during the day. As mountain and oceanic glaciers melt less sunlight is reflected back into space. The photographical evidence suggests that the earth's glaciers are melting at an increasing rate. And as these glaciers continue to retreat, more solar insolation is trapped near the earth's surface.

Either an increase in carbon dioxide levels or a decrease in reflected solar radiation will raise the aledo.

The Great Corn Rush?

It would certainly be nice for our country to become energy independent in this troubled world. Our nation imports 150 billion gallons of gasoline in the form of crude oil each year.

E85 is a flex-fuel which is a mixture of 15% gasoline with 85% ethanol. E85 can be used to replace gasoline used in our cars and trucks. This is certainly seems to be good news for those of us here in heart of corn country because the ethanol is produced from the fermination of corn.

An E85 production facility with an annual capacity of 100 million gallons of E85 needs 350 million gallons of water and 35 million bushels of corn per year. Up to 200 bushels of corn can be grown on one acre of land with an average yield of 175 bushels per acre. To produce 100 million gallons of E85, it would require 200,000 acres of land which is 310 square miles.

Corn as ethanol is certainly a renewable energy resource. But for the US to become energy independent, it would require 465,000 square miles of nothing but corn fields to produce E85. As a matter of comparison, this represents a land mass one-eighth the size of the contiguous 48 states.

Is anyone hungry?