Today: 24.Nov.2020

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 USA

Tom Blees, President, The Science Council for Global Initiatives: The United States is indisputably a world leader in many technologies. Yet the country’s leadership role in nuclear power has been in steady decline for many years. We can reverse the nation’s slide into near irrelevance quickly, safely, and decisively without any risk to the public from the process of developing transformative new reactor designs. But nibbling at the edges of the existing system like we're doing now won’t get us there.

The American Nuclear Society, Bob Coward, ANS President, James Conca: "Why Nuclear? Our security depends on it - national security, energy security, and economic security. Our future relies on it - environment, climate, and standard of living. Together, we will deliver." Nuclear in America is on a cusp between two very different paths. One path leads to continued global leadership. The other leads to a slow fading of our nuclear program to that of a third-rate power, leaving Russia and China to lead the world. Short-term thinking is the opposite of what a Great Nation needs to do, the opposite of what we did for most of the 20th century.

Published in USA

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?

Published in USA
  • Latest
  • Popular
  • John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: Many…
  • Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist, editor of kaltesonne.de: FFF,…
  • visualcapitalist.com: Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster…
  • .
  • Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, and members of…