Michel Gay: Le projet de loi sur la transition énergétique contient, dans son article premier, une réduction à 50% de la part du nucléaire dans la production d’électricité par rapport à 2012, et une montée de la part des énergies renouvelables intermittentes, notamment l'éolien et le solaire.
Wind plants are unable either to mitigate the need for additional conventional power generation in the face of increased demand or to reliably augment power during times of peak demand. As more wind installations are added, almost equal conventional power generation must also be brought on line. Wind technology, because of the inherently random variations of the wind, will not reduce meaningful levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide produced from fossil-fueled generation, which is its raison d’etre.
Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: We are writing as scientists, scholars, and concerned citizens to warn you of a persistent anti-nuclear bias in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on keeping global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate. Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.
Bloomberg, Weixin Zha, Brian Parkin: By 2030, the eastern German town of Poedelwitz will likely be razed to get at the rich veins of coal beneath its half-timbered houses. The reason: Chancellor Angela Merkel’s effort to steer Germany toward greener energy, which has unexpectedly meant booming demand for dirty coal. “This is unparalleled destruction of the environment,” says Jens Hausner, a farmer who has seen 17 of his 20 hectares consumed by digging equipment that looks like something out of a Mad Max movie. In a bit more than a decade, the hulking machines are expected to claw through the town’s 13th-century church and 40 or so remaining homes. None of this will lead to a significant reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide. From a scientific point of view, none of this matters. Its all politics, pure politics.
Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: This presents video talks by Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress. EP focuses on realistic, practical energy equality for people around the world as well as improving/protecting the environment through better living for people, better practices in all areas of the food industry, manufacturing, harvesting from oceans, preservation of wildlife habitat and wilderness. A significant strength of Environmental Progress is that they look for areas where their assumptions and policies can be improved and acknowledge mistakes. Many organizations settle on policies without being open to better ideas.
Paul Driessen Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by man-made global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws. 1) In the Real World the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather or other alleged problems. 2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. 3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs.
Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org): Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by man-made global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws. 1) The unprecedented warming and disasters are not happening. 2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. 3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards.
Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Environmentalists and Green New Deal proponents like to say we must take care of the Earth, because “There is no Planet B.” Above all, they insist, we must eliminate fossil fuels, which they say are causing climate change worse than the all-natural ice ages, Medieval Warm Period or anything else in history.
Their Plan A is simple: No fossil fuels. Keep them in the ground. More than a few Democrat presidential aspirants have said they would begin implementing that diktat their very first day in the White House. Their Plan B is more complex: Replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, biofuel and battery power – their supposedly renewable, sustainable alternatives to oil, gas and coal. Apparently by waving a magic wand.
David Lester, chemical engineer: It’s time for our state government to get real about our future electric power grid.
• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.
The website: allaboutenergy.net doesn't raise a question about NOAA’s climate data although others do raise the question of manipulation and misinterpretation. We question conclusions about atmospheric CO2 being the main driver of Earth's climate and claims that controlling atmospheric CO2 will control Earth's climate. Furthermore, we question claims that extracting CO2 from the atmosphere or limiting emissions from fossil fuels will control CO2 in the atmosphere. We think that CO2 emissions from vast CO2 reservoirs in the oceans and life on land are dominant controls of long-term atmospheric CO2.
Ward Whicker, Emeritus Professor of Radioecology - Global energy demands are at an unprecedented high and still growing. Global demand for electricity is projected to grow over 70 percent by 2035. Finding energy sources to power the world's growing population and economy and meet that demand cleanly and responsibly is part of an on-going debate. In spite of many advantages, some people have concerns about nuclear power generation. These fears trace largely to misguided assumptions concerning the actual environmental and health consequences from accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, most recently, Fukushima.
Stewart Brand, the man who helped usher in the environmental movement in the 1960s and '70s has been rethinking his positions on cities, nuclear power, genetic modification and geo-engineering. See this video recorded in 2014 for amazing information about nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar and wind energy for generating electricity.
James Conca, scientist in the field of earth and environmental sciences. Contributor to Forbes: Through thick and thin, extreme hot or extreme cold, Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington, USA never seems to stop producing over 9 billion kWhs of energy every year, enough to power Seattle. The same with all other nuclear plants in America. Not exactly the same with fossil fuels, wind and solar. Nuclear power plants have more design requirements for extremes of weather and catastrophes natural and man-made than fossil fuel, wind and solar generating stations. Which do you want? How important is continuous electrical power for you?
James Conca, scientist in the field of earth and environmental sciences. Contributor to Forbes: Through thick and thin, extreme hot or extreme cold, Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington, USA never seems to stop producing over 9 billion kWhs of energy every year, enough to power Seattle. The same with all other nuclear plants in America. Not exactly the same with fossil fuels, wind and solar. Nuclear power plants have more design requirements for extremes of weather and catastrophes natural and man-made than fossil fuel, wind and solar generating stations. Which do you want? How important is continuous electrical power for you?