Today: 18.Feb.2020

Diego Ortiz, writer for the BBC: He describes "ten simple changes to help save the planet." Most people understand that the world is much better off with fossil fuels than without them. There are some who absolutely want to get rid of fossil fuels. They (from Rome and Potsdam to Hollywood and Sacramento) say that the world can be saved with a few simple changes. For the sake of people everywhere, lets hope that clearer, smarter heads will prevail.

Published in BBC

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.

Peter Heller, physicist: It fills me with sadness and anger on how the work of the giants of physics is now being dragged through the mud, how the greatest scientific discoveries of the 20th century are being redefined and criminalized. The current debate in Germany is also a debate on freedom of research. The stigmatization and ostracism of nuclear energy, the demand for an immediate stop of its use, is also the demand for the end of its research and development. No job possibilities also means no students, which means no faculty, which then means the end of the growth of our knowledge. Stopping nuclear energy is nothing less than rejecting the legacy of Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and all others. It is tantamount to scrapping it, labelling it as dangerous – all in a fit of ignorance. My wish is to live in a world that is willing to learn and to improve whatever is good. I would only like to live in a world where great strides in physics are viewed with fascination, pride, and hope because they show us the way to a better future. I would only like to live in a world that has the courage for a better world. Any other world for me is unacceptable. Never. That’s why I am going to fight for this world, without ever relenting.

Published in Germany

Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: Let’s look at 2016. Germany installed four percent more solar panels but generated three percent less electricity from solar. Even when I’m in meetings with energy experts and I ask people if they can make a guess as to why they think that is, and you’d be shocked by how many energy experts have no idea. The reason is just that it wasn’t very sunny last year in Germany. Well, that probably meant that it was windier, right? Because if it’s not as sunny then maybe there’s more wind and those things can balance each other out? In truth, Germany installed 11 percent more wind turbines in 2016 but got two percent less of its electricity from wind. Same story. Just not very windy. Every major journal that looks at it concludes that nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

Published in Environmental Progress
  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, PhD Chemistry: Die Industrialisierung hat…
  • James Kennedy, President at ThREE Consulting &…
  • Al Williams, writer, Colin Hunt nuclear expert:…
  • Daniel Michaels, writer for the Wall Street…
  • Daniel Michaels, writer for the Wall Street…
  • Fritz Vahrenholt, PhD Chemistry: Die Industrialisierung hat…