Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt: Im ersten globalen Energiewende-Ranking kommt Deutschland nicht mal in Europa unter die Top Ten der Klima-Schützer. Nur gemeinsam mit Frankreich könne Deutschland auf Ökostrom umstellen. Energiewende und Klimaschutz gehören nicht zu den Prioritäten der Regierung. Erreichbar sind ihre 2030er-Klimaziele nur, wenn wir sofort gezwungen werden, jeden Kessel, Ofen, Motor stillzulegen. Völlig illusorisch.
Alan Waltar, nuclear engineer, Past President of the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear energy may be the first large industry in history that is capable of removing essentially all its wastes from the biosphere. [p. 108] It is important to recognize that the waste quantities we need to deal with are quite tractable, much smaller than the waste of any comparable industrial endeavor. If Americans received all their electricity from nuclear energy, rather than the 21% we receive today, the amount of high level nuclear waste (HLW) we would each be responsible for annually could be contained in three small marbles. By any relative measure, the volume of HLW that we must deal with is small, incredibly small.
Eric Rosenbloom, writer and science editor: In the U.S., 61.5% of the energy used is “lost,” i.e., only 38.5% of the energy consumed is actually extracted.20 In transmission alone, 7.34% of the electricity generated is lost. There is obviously much that can be improved in what we already have and will continue to live with for quite some time. Many alternative sources of energy, as well as dramatic improvements in the use of current sources, are in development. But wind turbines exist, so they are presented by their manufacturers and managers as the solution. Every effort is made to maintain the illusion that they are in fact a solution when a few simple questions reveal they are not.
David MacKay, Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge: How can we power a modern lifestyle without fossil fuels? Individual actions saving 10% here and 40% there will not get us off fossil fuels. To eliminate fossil fuel use, we will surely also need to increase the amount of energy we get from non-fossil-fuel sources. Even if we imagine strong efficiency measures and smart technology switches, halving our energy consumption from 125 kWh per day per person to 60 kWh per day, we should not kid ourselves about the scale of the energy challenge which would remain. If Britain and the United States were to "get off" fossil fuels, what would the effect be on Earth's climate? Most of the rest of the world can not afford to "get off" fossil fuels or do not have the right governments, economies, education systems, industrial capacity to do so.
Alan Waltar, nuclear engineer, Past President of the American Nuclear Society, Chair ANS - HPS Joint Topical Conference on Applicability of Radiation-Response Models to Low Dose Protection Standards, October 1 - 3, 2018: Preliminary Program. This conference addresses one of the most important issues facing nuclear power and nuclear medicine, how to establish realistic low dose radiation protection standards. Since the beginning of use of nuclear power in the 1950s, the arbitrary Linear No-Threshold Model with Collective Dose Corollary has been used with results that vastly over predict deaths due to exposure to low dose radiation. This has added tremendous costs, held back the use of nuclear power and limited the use of nuclear medicine. This conference aims at working to establish a low dose protection standard that is based on reality of living organisms rather than an unrealistic arbitrary set of rules.