I know you mean well and your enthusiasm is wonderful, but the hydrogen injection systems for cars that your site points to is a dead end. It doesn’t do anything significant for gas mileage–just because something is *patented* doesn’t mean it’s of particular value. There is no “suppression” of this technology–frankly, big companies just aren’t that organized.

First this is great news. Anything environmentally friendly is better than what we have now. But doesn’t mean there aren’t better ways. For example, all the talk about energy of the electro magnetic field (I have no degree in nuclear science of electro magnetics), but what I do know is it’s working for my car. If it’s working for my car, why shouldn’t it work anywhere else? It should be able to power the whole world, and why is everybody silent about it? Obviously it’s no secret because according to this site there are over 50 patents to it. Is it the big oil companies suppressing this? I don’t know. You can read more about it on http://www.SaveGasSaveEarth.com

Know what? May be the technology is so simple that may be it will be really dangerous if this goes into the hands of terrorists, and that’s why the world wants to suppress this, but that sounds really stupid!

Yes, nuclear power plants do use a lot of water and cause thermal pollution when the cooling water is pumped back into the environment.

Yes, nuclear power plants do have spent fuels (other lower level waste due to activation products are properly disposed of in specific radioactive waste sites) that presently are being stored in the nuclear power plant facilities, but as soon as Yucca Mountain is opened, it will resolve some issues. (Details on why Yucca Mountain is a good area to put spent fuels/old reactor cores takes too long to explain. Also these spent fuels could be utilized further if our government would allow reprocessing. For those who want to argue nuclear power is not safe should look up how many deaths in the US are related to nuclear power plants and how many are related to fossil fuel plants. I believe there is only a few (I want to say one) documented death due to an incident in a nuclear facility back in the 50s.)

But on the plus side of things:

Nuclear energy does not have carbon emissions like coal power plants, and current technologies are further improving designs which minimize risk and increase efficiency. This technology works and can provide a base load of electricity to meet this country’s energy needs. Hell, if the French can use 90% nuclear power and not have any problems .. why can’t we?

However I do agree with a comment above that hopes to utilize solar and wind electricity production on an individual basis. I think that coupled with efficient battery storage capabilities would work quite well. But the technology is not close to being cost effective (or at least not to my knowledge) there needs to be an alternative but short term solution to reducing green house gas production which means stop using fossil fuel power plants and switch to something else. Of course in my book that something else would be nuclear, but that is just my opinion.

Oh and on the topic of superfund sites. Superfund sites include improper chemical/toxic substances disposal as well. Should we just stop using chemicals? Have we found a “perfect” way of disposing of said chemicals/toxic stuff? The superfund sites were a result of lack of regulation on radioactive waste disposal and crazy individuals who think they can dispose of radioactive waste on their own. Todays regulations would slam a company hard with fines and make them pay for most if not all of the clean up if radioactive waste were improperly disposed.

Get real.

a 1kw solar panel set on every building, and/or a 1 kw wind turbine for every building will produce more power, locally, and extract a greater % of overall available energy from these sources.