Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: This article is another scientist's opinion on use of fossil fuels and what will be required for a transition when fossil fuels eventually run out or if governments decide to force abandonment of these energy resources that have created the modern world. He makes a very important conclusion: "Any significant change to the US power infrastructure MUST be a measured and long-term endeavor." There are several reasons for the long transition time: a) We don't have the technical ability to build nuclear plants that fast. b) We must establish used nuclear fuel reprocessing, mainly to save the unused 99% of nuclear energy from the ore. Don't put it back in the ground "forever." c) We must establish standard ways of storing the remaining radioactive waste. d) Nuclear power should only be used in countries with stable governments, strong economies, good education systems, well developed industries to perform some of the maintenance operations. e) We must develop additional nuclear power technologies besides the very large Light Water Reactors of the past. Don Bogard understands these needs. Too many outside the nuclear power profession wrongfully claim that the whole world can be owning and operating nuclear plants in fifty or one hundred years. In reality, it will be several centuries, maybe longer. We must have wise energy planning for the whole world NOW. That must include fossil fuels for generating electricity, not abandoning them for wind and solar.
Eric Jelinski, past president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - Canada, farmer, environmentalist, university lecturer with degrees in mechanical and chemical nuclear engineering: There is no such thing as renewable energy. Could you build a renewable energy system without any support from coal, oil or natural gas? I’d like to see the renewable energy advocates mine, manufacture and transport everything that is needed for wind and solar farms and electrical distribution networks.
A few notes about energy to Jurica Dujmovic at MarketWatch. (Howard Cork Hayden) USofA - Fossil fuels and nuclear are bad (Jurica Dujmovic)15.Oct.2019
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: My expertise is physics, and I have been studying the energy picture since the early 60s. My first publications about energy were in the early 80s, and I have published The Energy Advocate for over 23 years. Nobody --- not a single soul --- has ever been hurt by the radiation from a US power plant or by the waste therefrom, although we have had nuclear power plants in operation since the 50s. How is that bad? The MarketWatch Opinion article byJ Dujmovic, "Think fossil fuels are bad? Nuclear energy is even worse" could be one of the most inaccurate pieces MarketWatch has ever published.
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: As a long-time observer of the energy scene, I remind everybody that the war on nuclear is only part of the war on energy being waged by both the malicious and the ignorant. All energy saves lives, even from unreliable piddle-power sources like firewood (500 W/acre, 1200 W/ha year-round average), wind (5 kW/acre, 12 kW/ha year-round average), and solar (>>>$1 million/kWh at midnight). Please don’t get sucked in by the implication that fossil fuels are bad. You’d be joining the battle against energy.