What Michael Shellenberger thinks about energy
American writer; co-founded the Breakthrough Institute in 2003 and founded Environmental Progress in 2016. Author of Apocalypse Never (2020) and San Fransicko (2021); publishes Public, a newsletter on politics, energy and free speech.
Michael Shellenberger did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
Filter energy · Newest first
Only Michael Shellenberger on energy. See everyone on energy
12 dated positions, 2021, in their own words. Our reading of what Michael Shellenberger has said — not written or endorsed by them.
-
Their wordsOnly baseload hydro-electric and nuclear power plants can replace fossil fuels.
↗Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winningpublic.news 1st of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsAnd over-investment in unreliable renewables and underinvestment in nuclear, hydro-electricity, and natural gas, over the last decade, directly resulted in today's energy shortages, skyrocketing electricity prices, and a return to coal around the world.
↗Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winningpublic.news 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsWe need it to address climate change, and protect the environment. But most of all we need nuclear to lift people out of poverty, and power our remarkable civilization
↗Why The Pro-Nuclear Movement Is Winningpublic.news 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 10 days earlier
-
Their wordsBut the Clean Energy Performance Program was a badly written subsidy that would have increased electricity prices, blackouts, and US dependence on solar panels made by enslaved Muslims in China.
↗If Democrats Really Cared About Climate Change They Would Have Gone Nuclearpublic.news 1st of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsThere is still a way for President Biden and Senate Democrats to salvage their climate change plans, and that's to pass legislation that would expand nuclear energy from its current 19% today to 30% of electricity by 2030 and 50% by 2050.
↗If Democrats Really Cared About Climate Change They Would Have Gone Nuclearpublic.news 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Our readingRenewables return less than half as much energy as high-energy societies require to function.
Their wordsRenewables are today parasitical on society because they return less than half as much energy as our high-energy societies require to function, while hydro electric dams and nuclear power plants provide three to seven times more energy.
↗If Democrats Really Cared About Climate Change They Would Have Gone Nuclearpublic.news 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 2 days earlier
-
Their wordswhen the high cost of managing toxic solar panel waste is eventually accounted for, the true cost of solar electricity will rise four-fold.
↗Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislationpublic.news 1st of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsthe continued expansion of weather-dependent renewables will increase electricity costs and blackouts across the United States, as they did in California and Texas.
↗Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislationpublic.news 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsany efforts to decarbonize electricity grids without creating blackouts must center nuclear power, not weather-dependent solar and wind.
↗Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislationpublic.news 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 4 months earlier
-
Their wordsBut there is something else, too: the existence of nuclear power means we don't need renewables.
↗Why Environmentalists Cause Climate Changepublic.news 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Our readingExpanding nuclear power could reduce the need for President Biden's renewable energy agenda.
Their wordsBut Biden's renewable energy agenda is unnecessary for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. could simply expand nuclear power instead.
↗Why Environmentalists Cause Climate Changepublic.news 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 2 weeks earlier
-
Our readingThe left's support of green energy is wrong-headed due to a lack of engineering discipline.
Their wordsThis, combined with the left's near total lack of engineering discipline, has manifested in its wrong-headed support of "green energy."
↗Why Progressives Are Changing Their Mind About Nuclearpublic.news 2nd of 3 in this piece