(Heartland, CFACT, Paul Driessen) USofA - Renewable energy mining harmful for humans and environment05.Apr.2020
Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and The Heartland Institute: Wind and sunshine are clean and renewable very dilute energy sources. Their mining operations are anything but clean, "green," renewable, sustainable, or ethical.
Katherine Birdsong, B.Sc. in biology and environmental science. Advocate for nuclear energy. Educator for youth and young parents: The use of commercial nuclear energy in the United States and in many countries around the world is currently at a crossroads. The current nuclear production for the nation is averaging about 20% of the total energy generated. This is, on the world’s grading system, a “C” or “C-.” It should be a “B” or “B+” but the U.S. has failed to move the ball enough. Nuclear energy, as a practical issue, is a moderate success. However, nuclear is not succeeding in its enormous potential to grow and alleviate critical needs - energy - environment - medical - for today and, more importantly, the future of this country.<
(Eric Jelinski, James Conca, John Shanahan) Canada, USofA - What energy mix will North America have in 2100?28.Feb.2020
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.
(Barry Brook, Staffan Qvist) Australia Sweden - Displacement of fossil fuels by nuclear power in 25 to 34 years20.Feb.2020
Barry Brook, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, U. of Tasmania, Australia & Staffan Qvist, Dept. of Physics and Astrophysics, Uppsala University, Sweden: This documents the excellent French and Swedish nuclear power plant construction programs in the 1960s to 1990s. It then extrapolates to a prediction that the whole world could be on 100 % nuclear power within 25 - 34 years. This must assume that the rest of the world has similar government support and cooperation, similar stable, honest leadership, sound economies, industrial capabilities, education systems, etc. and that the construction companies and nuclear fuel demands for France and Sweden can be quickly increased to those of the whole world. It assumes that the world will use the same nuclear technology as the Swedish and French programs of the 1970s to 90s. In reality, it may take several hundred years to replace 50% of fossil fuels with advanced nuclear technologies that still need development and testing.