Gary Young, mechanical engineer, major product development manager - Before retirement, he worked on product development that significantly contributed to profitability of a global technology company: How do solar, wind, hydro, fossil fuels and nuclear compare for energy return on investment? What will happen if the United States does not continue with a second generation of nuclear power plants?
John Kotek, Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI: may be a "watershed" year for the US nuclear industry, which must maintain a strong domestic sector by keeping its reactors operating but must also demonstrate it can build new plants, while paving the way for advanced reactors.
Reuters, Alina Selyukh: Although no U.S. company now reuses its nuclear waste, the country has a long-running history with the technology. Following are timeline highlights of the U.S. inquiry into reprocessing and events that framed it. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were most influential in stopping reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. This material along with depleted uranium from enrichment programs can provide all the electrical energy needs at 1994 levels for over 700 years. If our enemies took this much energy away from America, there would be all out war. But our Presidents and Congress can do that without much of a stir from the American people.
John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: This is a simple, short comparison of wind, solar, fossil fuels and nuclear power. Two have extremely low energy density, require lots of materials, maintenance and tremendous volume of new parts every 20 to 30 years. They are also variable to non-existent sometimes and cause havoc with electrical energy grids for modern society. The other two are high to very high energy density and require much less land. The 2009 - 2017 White House, its Science Advisor, John Holdren, and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton are strong proponents of wind and solar energy, want significant reductions in use of fossil fuels and did little to promote nuclear power for the future. Most of the rest of the elected officials in the White House and Congress from the mid 1970s through 2018 have done little to develop a national energy plan. There are programs for assisting Americans with health care and retirement, but no national energy plan, except to use what is the cheapest or what is popular with voters today.