(Stewart Brand, Thomas Cochran, John Holdren, NPR) USofA - Will Nuclear Power Be Part Of A Climate Solution29.Oct.2019
John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama claims to be pro-nuclear power but says existing technology isn't safe enough and we must not use key advanced nuclear technology, which is essential in the long-term, Thomas Cochran worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council since the 1970s particularly to impede use of nuclear power, especially the kind that uses most of the potential energy and produces the lease amount of radioactive waste, Stewart Brand is the Founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, initially anti-nuclear power turned pro-nuclear power, He also has become a realist about man-made global warming. He is on the right track in all areas. Ernest Moniz was an Undersecretary for the Department of Energy and Physics Professor at MIT. Cochran and Holdren contributed little to actual development of nuclear power in the United States, mainly criticized it.: This NPR interview addresses a topic that is faulty from the beginning. Can nuclear power contribute to saving the world from catastrophic man-made global warming? Nuclear power can not and will not be expanded far enough to displace fossil fuels significantly for many decades. Whatever nuclear construction is accomplished will hardly impact climate change since it is mostly natural. Nuclear power has its own reasons to be promoted, namely lots of energy for a very long time and better for the environment.
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.
(Eric Jelinski, James Conca, John Shanahan) Canada, USofA - What energy mix will North America have in 2100?27.Oct.2019
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.
(Howard Cork Hayden) USofA - A few notes about energy to Jurica Dujmovic at MarketWatch. (Howard Cork Hayden) USofA - Fossil fuels and nuclear are bad (Jurica Dujmovic)15.Oct.2019
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: My expertise is physics, and I have been studying the energy picture since the early 60s. My first publications about energy were in the early 80s, and I have published The Energy Advocate for over 23 years. Nobody --- not a single soul --- has ever been hurt by the radiation from a US power plant or by the waste therefrom, although we have had nuclear power plants in operation since the 50s. How is that bad? The MarketWatch Opinion article byJ Dujmovic, "Think fossil fuels are bad? Nuclear energy is even worse" could be one of the most inaccurate pieces MarketWatch has ever published.