Andrew Follett, energy and science reporter for The Daily Caller: Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants. They use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for. But very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.
Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: If solar and wind farms are needed to protect the natural environment, why do they so often destroy it?
James Temple, writer for MIT technology Review: Fluctuating solar and wind power require lots of energy storage, and lithium-ion batteries seem like the obvious choice—but they are far too expensive to play a major role. Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy. At current prices, a battery storage system of that size would cost more than $2.5 trillion. Repeat that every time the batteries are worn out.
Richard McPherson, electrical power and grid security expert: America is now living with a horrible electricity supply system. At the same time the nationwide system is vulnerable to the effects of weather, humans, EMP and solar events. A situation created by politicians for their benefits. A system, China, Russia, North Korea and their proxies love.
William Doss, Writer for radiologybusiness.com, Jeffrey Siegel, President and CEO of Nuclear Physics Enterprises.: A group of nuclear energy executives and consultants refuted the nearly 80-year-old belief that low doses of radiation can eventually cause cancer, instead positing that it produces a beneficial biological response, in an article published in the Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They argue the long-held Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis is flawed.
Charles Pennington, consultant in spent nuclear fuel storage/transport and radiological design and licensing. Jeffrey Siegel, President and CEO of Nuclear Physics Enterprises.: As we all know, the data supporting the LNT model have long purported to show, from low-dose ionizing radiation data and analyses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the "proof" (or at least justification) of the LNT model. That model has been on a respected pedestal for decades, but with some rebuttal/refutation. We have attempted to remove it from this undeservedly exalted position and essentially undermine it using its own data (LNT is false - linearity at low dose is nonexistent and there is a threshold) and we also highlight other significant causalities more likely to be responsible for the LSS carcinogenesis than low-dose radiation exposure.