Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

A Missing Word: Nuclear

May 14, 2007 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 85, Issue 20

In "Dealing with CO2 from Coal," Jeff Johnson makes some very good points while providing an abundance of useful information about the state of coal production and purification in the U.S., at a time when global warming is a high-profile scientifically and publicly acknowledged phenomenon (C&EN, April 2, page 48).

What troubled me about the article was the total absence of one word: nuclear. I realize that this was not an article about nuclear power, but rather coal power. However, in light of the splitting of the atom being the only practical source of large-scale sustainable energy currently available to us, some comparative mention of it in an article about coal should have been made.

Much has been said about the hydrogen economy, for example, yet such an economy is unsustainable and perhaps even impractical unless the hydrogen fuel required is made from water. Within the limits of our current technology, only nuclear energy can do this economically and thus realistically. When will the Department of Energy get back on board with its double-edged gift to the world and stop wasting precious time?

Walter Cicha
Vancouver, British Columbia

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.