energy

Green America is active in addressing the climate crisis by transitioning the US electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired and natural gas power. But all of that work will be wasted if we transition from fossil fuels to an equally dangerous source – nuclear power. Nuclear power is not a climate solution. It may produce lower-carbon energy, but this energy comes with a great deal of risk.

Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: An all-star group of energy and climate scholars published a scientific article in a prestigious journal pointing out that a Stanford professor’s proposal for powering the United States entirely on renewable energy sources rests upon a gigantic lie. Over the last several years, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo and many politicians have pointed to Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson’s modeling as proof that we can quickly and cheaply transition to 100 percent renewables. What is the lie?100 percent renewable energy rested on a lie That we can increase the amount of power from U.S. hydroelectric dams ten-fold. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and all major studies, the real potential increase is just one percent of that.

As of February 2017, Mark Jacobson is listed as being in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University. He talks about the problems of man-made global warming from fossil fuels and how wind and solar energy can provide 100 % of electrical energy needs in the United States. Many people recognize that wind and solar are extremely low energy density compare to nuclear, highly unpredictable in energy output and have times when they don't provide energy at all. What if the United States adopted his plan? What would that do for the man-made climate change he talks about? What would the rest of the world do, go wind and solar, stick with fossil fuels, go nuclear? What has James Lovelock said recently about man-made global warming, wind energy and nuclear? See his position in other articles on this website.

James Temple, writer for MIT Technology Review: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role. Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy. At current prices, a battery storage system of that size would cost more than $2.5 trillion. Repeat that every time the batteries are worn out.

Richard McPherson, electrical power and grid security expert. He is pursuing executable humanitarian solutions under the nexus of agriculture, water and energy: America is now living with a horrible electricity supply system. At the same time the nationwide system is vulnerable to the effects of weather, humans, EMP and solar events. A situation created by politicians for their benefits. A system, China, Russia, North Korea and their proxies love.

John Kotek, Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI: may be a "watershed" year for the US nuclear industry, which must maintain a strong domestic sector by keeping its reactors operating but must also demonstrate it can build new plants, while paving the way for advanced reactors.

Hiroko Tabuchi, New York Times: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. Of the world’s 20 biggest coal plant developers, 11 are Chinese.

The World Economic Forum — also known as “Davos” — is an exclusive talking shop for the rich and powerful. As a symbol of the neoliberal order it’s long been a target for the anti-capitalist Left. More recently, it’s also become a bugbear of the populist Right. That’s not just because the WEF champions globalisation, but also because of what some see as an elitist plot to radically change our lifestyles. Peter Franklin, The Post, February 11, 2022

Apparently, a shadowy cabal is dead set on getting us to eat bugs instead of real meat and to live in pods instead of proper flats and houses. Needless to say, the conspiracy theories are overblown; but, as I explain here, insect protein and tiny homes are definitely on the Davos agenda.

David Wojick, Heartland Institute, Ph.D. Philosophy of Science and Mathematical Logic, B.Sc. Civil Engineering: The brutal cold wave that just struck America provides a stark example of why 100% renewables cannot possibly work. Once the massive high pressure system was in place there was almost no wind, so no significant wind power. And the coldest temperatures by far were at night or early morning, when there was no solar power either. The first drawing shows Germany aiming for 100% wind and solar and they are using coal as backup, essentially no reduction in fossil fuel capacity. Colorado and California are mandating 100% wind and solar (with fossil fuel backup?). It is the worse possible energy plan for modern economies. Thank the politicians who planned this.

James Conca, scientist in the field of earth and environmental sciences. Contributor to Forbes: A Christmas message about energy.

Peter Fairley, IEEE: The most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other in China. This is great for China. The United States is in the process of acquiescing to anti-nuclear organizations and their politicians by closing nuclear plants with no plans to replace them with more nuclear. Where will this lead?

Peter Fairley, IEEE: The most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other in China. This is great for China. The United States is in the process of acquiescing to anti-nuclear organizations and their politicians by closing nuclear plants with no plans to replace them with more nuclear. Where will this lead?

Gary Young, retired engineering manager: It is lamented that far too few of the electorate have any real understanding of the hard sciences. This lack of understanding has given rise to embracing poor (junk) science at even some of the highest levels of academic and political thought. The current concept of most concern is all the political rhetoric about renewables such as solar and wind providing our energy. There is only one well understood technology at the present time that could produce vast amounts of power in addition to fossil fuels and that is nuclear. We are held back from the nuclear solution by unfounded fear. The root of the fear is the very wrong doctrine of “liner no threshold” concerning the biological effects of radiation. In truth, there are thresholds and almost nothing in science is linear.

Cheryl Rofer, Nuclear Diner: Two South Carolina utilities are abandoning two unfinished nuclear reactors, half of the new reactors being built in the United States today. A decision on the other two will be made later this month. Congratulations for contributing to this failure to: 1) The contractors who cannot build nuclear plants on time and within budget. 2) The utilities that cannot contract or manage the building of nuclear plants. 3) The financiers who have botched their judgments of the projects. 4) Proponents of nuclear power. 5) Opponents of nuclear power. 6) The Department of Energy and its predecessors. 7) Congress and the White House.

Alan Waltar, nuclear engineer, Past President of the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear energy may be the first large industry in history that is capable of removing essentially all its wastes from the biosphere. [p. 108] It is important to recognize that the waste quantities we need to deal with are quite tractable, much smaller than the waste of any comparable industrial endeavor. If Americans received all their electricity from nuclear energy, rather than the 21% we receive today, the amount of high level nuclear waste (HLW) we would each be responsible for annually could be contained in three small marbles. By any relative measure, the volume of HLW that we must deal with is small, incredibly small.

Rosatom, the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM is a global technological leader for development of nuclear energy and nuclear science applications. It offers more help than most other leading nuclear energy countries.

The company has assets and competencies to work at all stages of the nuclear production chain from uranium mining to decommissioning of nuclear facilities and spent nuclear fuel management.ROSATOM brings together about 400 enterprises and organizations, including the world's only nuclear icebreaker fleet. It is the largest electricity generating company in Russia, accounting for 18.7% of the country’s total generation of electricity. ROSATOM is the third in the world in nuclear power generation. The corporation is the global leader in simultaneous implementation of NPP power units and has the largest portfolio of foreign construction projects (36 NPP units in 12 countries). ROSATOM manufactures equipment and produces isotopes for nuclear medicine, carries out research and material studies. It also assembles supercomputers and designs software as well as different nuclear and non-nuclear innovative products. The company has business ventures covering various clean energy projects, including wind energy. ROSATOM has second largest uranium reserves and 17% of the global nuclear fuel market.

Thomas Cochran, physicist, lead anti-nuclear power advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council: Nuclear power is the only energy that can meet all the world's electrical energy needs for thousands of years. It is reliable, clean, safer than almost anything else mankind does. He wants the USA and the world to stop using nuclear energy. He has been working towards this goal since the 1970s.

Nuclear power plants are currently too costly in the US to justify their construction as replacement for those that are being shut down, let alone to increase their contribution to clean energy.