Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment at the Manhattan Institute. In theory, the March 11, 2011, disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should have bolstered environmentalists’ opposition to new nuclear-energy projects. But in the wake of the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, some of the world’s leading Greens have done just the opposite: they have come out in favor of nuclear power.
The anti-fossil fuel, particularly anti-coal, non-profit organizations and their counterparts in the American government and the Environmental Protection Agency have caused most of Austral-Asia, Brazil, most of "Green" Europe, Russia and most of the Middle East to apply for membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China's new Coal Bank. American Environmental Policies have contributed to driving manufacturing out of the country, contributing to mass flows of dollars to China and similar countries. China now has a lot of money to invest in Third World Infrastructure Projects, including coal fired power plants, for India, etc. Anti-fossil fuel and anti-nuclear activists, organizations and their politicians claim they can stop global warming, can stop CO2 concentration from rising above 400 ppm, claim that 400 ppm is a crisis Tipping Point. It is impossible for anyone to do these things. The only thing that will be accomplished is turning back modern living standards for many people, which will mean human misery and more destruction of the environment. EFN-USA seeks to identify environmental problems that are real and solvable.
How to Spread Nuclear Power without Sharing Nuclear Know-How (Gerald Marsh and George Stanford) USofA22.Mar.2015
Gerald Marsh and George Stanford - The combination ofhub-spoke, an amended NPT, and a variation of the GNEP with internationally guaranteed fuel recycling and waste disposal, will not tum back the clock on existing nuclear weapon states, nor will it guarantee that further proliferation will not occur. But it would permit the inevitable spread of civilian nuclear power without expanding the membership of the nuclear weapon club.
Michael Dittmar - The worries about existing and potential problems with our oil, gas and coal supplies for our industrial based way of living have certainly increased.
However, people enthusiastic about large scale technology, especially with some background in physics, are pointing quickly either to nuclear energy or to large scale solar power projects as possible solutions to such worries. Such views are supported by most economists and politicians who propose that one only needs to invest trillions of dollars to manage potentially existing problems with our fossil fuel based energy civilization. It is assumed that the intelligent investment of money will be sufficient to solve the problems with nuclear fusion and make it available either directly on our planet or indirectly using solar energy. Such views about the future use of energy are often lacking the relevant facts about today’s energy use and existing technological constraints. Instead, the preferred form of discussions seems to be dominated by theoretical and hypothetical ideas about unproven concepts with unknown capital costs.