Michel Gay: Il faut en effet justifier à tout prix la destruction de richesse que représentera la fermeture anticipée de réacteurs en parfait état de fonctionnement. Ce sont en effet quelques dizaines de milliards d’Euros que l’on s’apprête à jeter par la fenêtre en décidant de réduire la durée de vie des réacteurs du parc 900 MWe pour satisfaire des fanatiques antinucléaires et quelques élus complices.
James Smith, Professor of Engineering, West Virginia University, Alex Hatch, Mechanical Engineer graduate student WVU: During the next few decades, even marginal efficiency improvements could greatly offset growing overall global energy use. Such improvements could largely eliminate the need to add any new overall energy production capacity. That would allow us to focus on the important development of new energy technologies. By using these efficiency increases, we can expand research and development into next generation high-efficiency systems – including wind, solar, oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear. Using these newly developed technologies could, in turn, lead to more a reliable, lower cost, more sustainable energy future for the USA and world.
John Hinderaker, POWERLINE blog: Minnesota is a poor place for solar power, so its renewable policies have focused on wind. Minnesota has gone whole hog for wind energy, to the tune of approximately $15 billion. It is noteworthy that demand for electricity in Minnesota has been flat for quite a few years, so that $15 billion wasn’t spent to meet demand. Rather, it replaced electricity that already was being produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable; it can only be produced when the wind is blowing within certain parameters, and cannot be stored at scale. It is expensive and inefficient, and therefore patently inferior to nuclear, coal and natural gas-powered electricity, except in one respect–its “greenness.”
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.