Right now I am doing a documentary on HEAL Utah and Energy Solutions and it was amazing what I witnessed; one time the Utah Legislature gave the pro-nuclear power people 2 hours to speak, they gave everybody else (including farmers, scientists and HEAL) approx. 40 mins. It was ridiculous, they even cut people off during their speaking, of which, they did not interrupt the pro-nuclear people.

Clearly biased? Also, just because it doesn’t give off CO2 emissions, people pro-nuclear sometimes neglect the facts of mining and milling also. Both detrimental to the Earth. Also, and here is a kicker, James Lovelock author of GEIA, is also pro-nuclear.

It’s getting interesting, HEAL Utah is now working to get funding to do an analysis of if Utah was purely run on renewable sources. Help them out if you can.

Sincerely,
HavePencilWillTravel

Reply from Paul: Thanks for the comment, and I wish you the best with your documentary. Let us know when it’s complete.

You bring up a point about the post, stating that nuclear energy is technically green since it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. That would certainly be the case if green energy means an energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases; however, since green energy is a new term, it doesn’t have a set definition. Many people think of green energy as an energy source that is friendly to the environment in its entirety, not just one that is friendly to the environment in the sense that it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases.