wind

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.

This video explains in simple terms why a 100% production of energy using windmills is impossible and unpayable in practice, despite all the positive information coming from green power advocates.

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.

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.

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?

Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation and Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd: This article explains how nuclear can use coal to create petrol for many transportation applications. Somewhat more than a third of South Africa’s petrol is derived from coal via the SASOL operation. When South Africa was developing its own SMR the PBMR, SASOL was interested in building a PBMR near one of the catalytic cracking plants to supply process heat. At present the largest SASOL plant is in a town called Secunda. It burns coal to provide the process heat to crack the rest of the coal. About 60% of the coal brought into Secunda is burnt to provide the heat to crack the other 40%. So the idea was to build the SMR of about 100MW and then to use its heat directly to chemically process 100% of the coal to liquid fuels, including diesel, aviation fuel and so on. This was projected to be able to reduce the cost of petrol significantly.

Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: It seems nearly everyone wants to advance sustainability principles. The problem is, no one really knows what they are. Real sustainability means responsible conservation and stewardship of natural resources. The public relations variety is mostly image-enhancing fluff.

Jon Boone, environmentalist, naturalist, bird and nature artist, wind energy expert: Modern power is a time machine, not for moving back and forward in time, but rather expanding the time in which we can do other things. As the scale of power production gets larger, costs become less expensive, making the power more generally available. Modern power has lifted billions of people out of the grind of poverty, improving both quantity and quality of life.

Over the last two years, some of the world’s most powerful and influential bankers and investors have argued that climate change poses a grave threat to financial markets and that nations must switch urgently from using fossil fuels to using renewables.

But a major new staff report from the New York Federal Reserve Bank throws cold water on the over-heated rhetoric coming from activist investors, bankers, and politicians. “How Bad Are Weather Disasters for Banks?” asks the title of the report by three economists. “Not very,” they answer in the first sentence of the abstract.

John Shanahan is a civil engineer and past president of Go Nuclear, Inc. and Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: There is a titanic struggle over the topic of man-made global warming and man-made sea level rise. The struggle exists on five levels: a) among scientists who have a good knowledge of physics and chemistry related to carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its role in the entire subject of atmospheric, ocean and land sciences, b) among politicians, c) among people who are determined to save the world from fossil fuels and man-made carbon dioxide, no matter the effects on humanity, d) among other scientists and engineers who claim to have the answers, d) among the public who have very little to no knowledge of atmospheric science, but nevertheless are sure they know the correct answers. A second important topic relates to advocates for nuclear energy who claim to have the answers. If they are wrong about man-made global warming, how can they be trusted with information about nuclear energy. The absolute truth will only come from nature in time. The question is, "How many big mistakes will humans make on this topic before the truth is fully known?