Divergent Ideas at 2GreenEnergy

Readers may have noticed the pro-nuclear comments of Frank Eggers. Responding to my request for guest bloggers, Frank wrote:

I’m not sure that there’d be much point in my blogging on this site.

The only information this site about nuclear energy is very obsolete.  The olde objections to nuclear power no longer apply.  There are solutions to the problems which were formerly a valid concern.  For example, there are reactor designs that do not require enriched uranium; natural uranium and thorium can be used as fuels.  Also, there reactor designs that produce very little waste because they use the fuel more than 100 times as efficiently than the pressurized water thermal reactors which, unfortunately, are too common.   Moreover, the waste they do produce decays much more quickly and needs to be sequestered for only about 500 years rather than tens of thousands of years.

It seems that up to date and correct information on nuclear power is censored from this site.  Also, any information that questions the practicality of wind and solar energy is also censored.  That is very unfortunate because unless nuclear energy becomes a major part of our energy mix, we will become even more dependent on coal and the serious problems that coal creates.

Considering the above, there would be little point in my writing blogs for this site.

My original response was:

I understand.  Thanks for writing back.

But I woke up this morning with a different take, as follows:

Frank:  You know, been I’ve thinking about this further, as, in truth, we don’t censor pro-nuclear or any other ideas.  If you want to write a blog on this subject, expressing a divergent but legitimate viewpoint, I would actually encourage that.  It can be passionate (I can see you have plenty to offer in that department) as long as it’s respectful.  I’m more than open to your ideas.

We’ll see what happens.