solar

John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: The American 2020 election in November will have perhaps the biggest consequences of any election in its history. CHOICE ONE: huge, even one-world government, where a few ideologues opposed to rules for a Republic established by the Founding Fathers pretend to solve all the country's energy, economic and social problems. CHOICE TWO: small government with maximum freedom for all. The choices are crystal clear and will take the United States either to a beautiful place with plentiful energy and prosperity or to where everyone is dependent on the government in a miserable economy. Wind and solar energy or fossil fuels and nuclear power. Don't decide on the personalities of the individual candidates. Decide on what they will deliver for you and our country.

Most of my friends support the content of 2,800 articles about energy on the website: allaboutenergy.net. Some live in doubt and fear of carbon dioxide, the molecule of life, thinking it causes catastrophic global warming, hate fossil fuels, and fear nuclear power. Haven’t been able to convince them that these things are safe and necessary in the modern world. Win some. Lose some. Don’t worry. Be Happy!

Nuclear power is one of the safest things mankind has ever developed, even with the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Nuclear medicine, nuclear technologies, and nuclear science will make the future even greater.

Driving a car, riding a bicycle, meeting friends, playing sports, going to church, using the Internet, lying in bed, and attending family reunions are riskier than living near a nuclear power plant designed to standards of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Europe, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, and the USA. Probably also China and Russia.

John Shanahan is a civil engineer and past president of Go Nuclear, Inc. and Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: There is a titanic struggle regarding nuclear energy, fossil fuels, wind, solar and bio-fuels and the topic of man-made global warming and man-made sea level rise. This article presents the position of the website: allaboutenergy.net. The right combination of energy sources and position on the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming and sea-level rise is extremely important for humanity, the environment and all of nature.

David Wojick, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT, Washington, D.C., Ph.D. Philosophy of Science and Mathematical Logic, B.Sc. Civil Engineering: I doubt the average customer will be excited about coughing up a billion dollars just so the greens can feel good by forcing use of solar energy. But the utility loves it because, as a regulated monopoly, the more money they spend the more guaranteed profit they make. I can see their stock price and executive salaries going up as a result. Simply put, this is battery trickery.

Paul Driessen, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, CFACT: In a world where we are supposed to ban nuclear (and most hydroelectric) power, the very notion of eliminating the 80% of all global energy that comes from oil, natural gas and coal – replacing it with wind, solar and biofuel power – is fundamentally absurd. Now the focus is on climate change. Every EV sale will help prevent assumed and asserted man-made temperature, climate and weather disasters, we’re told – even if their total sales represented less than 1% of all U.S. car and light truck sales in 2016 (Tesla sold 47,184 of the 17,557,955 vehicles sold nationwide last year), and plug-in EVs account for barely 0.15% of 1.4 billion vehicles on the road worldwide.

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said, "The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change." Then, yesterday, she proposed a “transition from” nuclear power, America’s largest source of emissions-free energy. How does she avoid the cognitive dissonance created by holding two radically opposed views? The Socialist revolutions of the last century all over again.

The president finally admits we need more oil refineries but lies about supply

Biden killed a major oil refinery expansion on May 14, just five weeks ago, and killed a one million acre oil and gas lease proposed for Alaska on May 12. Some might dismiss Biden’s refusal to open up one million acres in Alaska, but Biden has yet to hold a single onshore lease sale and delayed multiple oil and gas lease sales a second time last week.

Dax Contreras, digital Director, Editor and contributor for The New Mexico Politico. Safe, reliable, and affordable power is a crucial part of a strong and growing economy. The dependability and general affordability of electricity here in U.S. is a significant component of our historically robust economy. But recently, a vocal and active few here in New Mexico are part of a coordinated, nationwide effort to severely restrict our ability to produce economical and reliable power.

The company, Energy Vault, has commercialized the ultimate energy storage technology that will build the foundation of a clean energy future – brick by brick.

The Energy Vault stores excess electrical energy by efficiently transforming it into gravitational potential energy using 35-ton bricks that can be raised and lowered at will, and that can sit still storing the energy for any amount of time, before transforming the energy back to electrical energy when needed.

This idea has applications for storing excess energy from the grid from any energy source if it proves economically competitive. The idea is beautiful in its simplicity and generalization of pumped water storage in the mountains.

Rob Jeffrey, Independent Economic Risk Consultant: It is claimed that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity and these sources should dominate the future electricity supply. This paper focuses on known additional costs and subsidies which are not taken into account by their advocates. Advocates of wind and solar claim a cost of 62cents/kWh. This is, however, the price at the gate of the supplier. It does not include all the costs of supply necessary to convert this electricity from non-dispatchable electricity supply to dispatchable electricity supply at the point of supply to the customer. These are in effect direct subsidies to solar and wind suppliers, whereas they should be added as a cost to the renewable energy suppliers

Charles Battig, MD, electrical engineer, member: CO2 Coalition, The Heartland Institute, TRCS: This presentation shows that carbon dioxide is an essential molecule for life on Earth and not a pollutant like environmental extremists and their politicians claim. People in the free world must come to their senses regarding the importance of fossil fuels for freedom, strong economies, peace, prosperity, healthy environment, preservation of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. An easy to understand document like this is essential for the public. The nuclear power industry should stop making claims that nuclear power can save the world and polar bears from catastrophic man-made global warming. Nuclear power is not able to control Earth's climate. This presentation and many like it clearly explain what controls climate change. Nuclear power is essential to providing strong economies around the world for thousands of years and helping poorer, less prosperous people. It should rely on that strength to get new nuclear power plants going worldwide.

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 using wind and solar alone. Jim Conca, geologist, science and energy writer for Forbes predicts the 2100 mix will be natural gas and wind. John Shanahan, civil engineer says that natural gas and nuclear is better.

Neil Alexander, Ph.D. radiation damage in steels, business strategist, consultant and advocate for nuclear energy: In this world, when we finally admit the renewables experiment was a failure, we will look around and find we have few other options available to us. New nuclear if we need it will take decades to research, develop, test, license and deploy.

Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: On the global stage, despite Herculean efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and activist groups to redefine ‘climate change’ and conjure up scary hobgoblins, the obsession over global warming, ‘green’ energy and the Paris climate treaty has hit the rocky shoals of reality. Despite well over $150 million spent by billionaires Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and multiple environmentalist groups, hard-green voter propositions were resoundingly defeated in the 2018 US elections.

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.

Stewart Brand On Why Environmentalists Should Embrace Nuclear Power. Considering all the alternatives, including wind and solar, environmentalists must come to terms with the reality that nuclear power is the greenest, safest, most reliable answer to our energy challenges. That is the message from leading environmentalist, counter-cultural icon, and once-opponent of nuclear power Stewart Brand in a new video interview posted by Big Think.

Michael Fox, Emeritus Professor in Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences - Nuclear power may just be the most important solution to our search for clean, sustainable energy sources. Although wind and solar can contribute to our energy mix, we need a reliable source to meet large-scale energy demands. However, most people are wary, if not downright afraid, of nuclear power. It's time to clear up misconceptions and examine the science behind nuclear power, in order to determine what role it could and should play in our future. NOTE: There are supporters of nuclear energy on both sides of the Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, topic. The position of this website is that nuclear power is important to deal with climate change from all causes. See articles about AGW under the tab, ENVIRONMENT.