Zion Lights provides fascinating insights into the hyperbolically named Extinction Rebellion and much-needed insights into changes needed in environmentalist strategies. One important lesson is the simple fact that such a brilliant and well-meaning person could have been so badly misled by such a righteous left movement claiming to be based on science. This should be a warning to all of us.
As to nuclear safety, Chernobyl eventually killed tens of thousands. But that was a 45-year-old design, run by the Soviet bureaucracy without passing its mandated safety test. The Mark 1 Fukushima reactor was an equally old design located in the path of a 40-foot tsunami. About 440 nuclear plants are now producing 10% of the world’s power with about 50 more under construction.
The US is finally investing in 4th generation nukes which are far safer and likely much smaller. Safety is achieved not so much through elaborate controls and procedures, but with designs that are not pressurized because they use molten salt which does not boil, instead of water that needs 2,000 pounds per square inch to keep it from boiling. Also, they just quit working if they melt down — instead of going critical (the China Syndrom). And some can actually burn spent fuel from the current reactors.
Since China, India, Russia, and who knows, will keep building, the safest course is for the US to help produce the safest possible designs, so that those are built. US emissions are now small potatoes, but nukes would be a huge help with going green faster.
Note that Lorna Salzman’s complaints are both fact- and evidence-free. And, her accusation that “using climate change to defend nuclear power has its origins in the climate denial movement,” is a baseless smear.
James Hansen, the #1 environmentalist climate scientist, has long considered nuclear power an essential part of the solution. You can read this in his book, Storms of My Grandchildren. Everyone knows he’s completely honest and dedicated.
Also, I had the privilege of working extensively with the late David MacKay, starting when I was consulting for the British Dept. of Energy and Climate Change and he was their Chief Scientific Advisor. He was a brilliant, vegetarian, bicycle-riding, Cal-Tech physicist — just the nicest person you could ever hope to meet. And totally dedicated to stopping climate change. In his well-loved book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, which analyses every alternative energy source, he concludes that England will have to use nuclear or huge solar arrays in North Africa, of which he was quite skeptical.
This brings me to the one idea that David, I, and about a dozen top climate economists (Stiglitz, etc.) put forward in Global Carbon Pricing: The Path to Climate Cooperation. The idea is novel. A global carbon price is needed, not so much for economic reasons, but because the real climate problem is not technical or even the climate deniers, the huge problem is international cooperation. That requires an “I Will if You Will” agreement and a single price is the best starting point for that. (Google: nature.com MacKay)
”Since China, India, Russia, and who knows, will keep building, the safest course is for the US to help produce the safest possible designs, so that those are built. ”
This might be the case, indeed. NK is a difficult problem. Much uncertainty. Certainly would use if struck first. I don't know about second use policy. That is not my domain. Best if not used at all. Want to get there. How do we get to that future? That is my thinking. Process ideas matter. Not my expertise. We need experts thinking across the world.
I have to admit that I very much enjoyed the podcast. Two points were most relevant to me - the arc of evolving one's position on complex issues (and how hard that must be when you are in the vortex of it) and how that arc is impacted by a movement going from raising awareness to figuring out how to solve it. Clearly Lorna has a different take on the "how" but I do respect Zion's pivot and her willingness to allow pragmatism into the conversation. The ultimate question of nuclear power's place in the solution seems to still up for debate.
Additonally and on a related but different point, I struggle mightily with the strategies employed in order to attract attention for a given cause. There are just too many 'valid' competing interests. Prioritization/alignment are hyper-critical to make a dent in any collective action issue. Yelling and screaming louder via theatrical/violent one-upmanship seems like a poor methodology to use to determine that prioritization. Science? Institutions? I'd love to hear a better answer on how to get this part right while minimizing the pain, angst and suffering along the way. Perhaps one set of facts might help?!
Utter complete ignorance, devoid of facts, evidence, objectivity. How you chose this uninformed person to comment on nuclear energy...without examining her sources and the people and writings that changed her mind is a great puzzle. As one who has written extensively on this issue and was immersed in the whole movement starting in 1977 I am much more qualified to address this issue...and rebut every one of her points. The new fashion of using climate change to defend nuclear power has its origins in the climate denial movement and in those whose livelihood and personal beliefs depend on the survival of this myth. I challenge you to demand that this person reveal the sources of her information. I think you will be quite surprised....but I wont be. If you want another more informed view, give me the chance to address all ofher false and unsubstantiated opinions...for that's what they are, NOT objective impartial facts. You have been scammed.
Apologies for not having done the full 'work' on your position/background but given a quick Google search I imagine we'd all like to hear it given it directly addresses the substance of the podcast. Not sure you need Yascha/Persuasion to "give you a chance," it seems to me that these comment boards could at least kick off the conversation.
I am happy to expound on any venue, including here. But the best way to do it is for me to answer questions rather than give a lecture. If any readers have questions on specific aspects of nuclear power, or my experience, or anything else I am quite happy to respond.Otherwise people can go to my web site and read a few of my longer articles that were published elsewhere in the 1970s and early 1980s. I appreciate your open minddness and willingness to seek out my sources rather than accepting everyrthing you read as the gospel truth...something almost entirely absent from the long nuclear debate. Thank you.
There are a multitude of competing contentions that are of equal and contrasting concern when contemplating whether nuclear energy can be sustainably implemented for human life and flourishing on planet earth as we adapt to the changes happening in our biosphere. I do not know what the facts are specifically, so I am not ready to take a position, but I am glad that you have posited an (emotional) counter-argument to a debate that immensely important. That is why I say *safe* before making the assertion. I don't know whether or not it is safe, and that is of immense import to anyone thinking about secure sustainability.
And to scholars who have found their vocation in the study of these systems, I commend those who are emotionally committed to their perspective, for we need passion when thinking about alternative futures.
My "emotional commitment" is to truth, honesty and evidence. The history of nuclear power manifests none of these for those who care to do serious research rather than believing your peer group. Those who promote nuclear energy need to divulge the sources of their opinions as well as any conflict of interest. Nowadays confirmation bias is the rule: believe what conforms to your own prejudices or opinions. The definition of "safe" has yet to be objectively determined. In any event this whole discussion is meaningless inasmuch as nuclear power will never be revived in this country and has little future elsewhere due to costs and public skepticism..which is quite justified regarding any complex technology the failure of which has such enormous negative consequences.
Good podcast! I'm going to do some research of my own because as Zion points out, we need to reduce emissions, and do it faster than renewable will allow. Thanks!
Zion Lights provides fascinating insights into the hyperbolically named Extinction Rebellion and much-needed insights into changes needed in environmentalist strategies. One important lesson is the simple fact that such a brilliant and well-meaning person could have been so badly misled by such a righteous left movement claiming to be based on science. This should be a warning to all of us.
As to nuclear safety, Chernobyl eventually killed tens of thousands. But that was a 45-year-old design, run by the Soviet bureaucracy without passing its mandated safety test. The Mark 1 Fukushima reactor was an equally old design located in the path of a 40-foot tsunami. About 440 nuclear plants are now producing 10% of the world’s power with about 50 more under construction.
The US is finally investing in 4th generation nukes which are far safer and likely much smaller. Safety is achieved not so much through elaborate controls and procedures, but with designs that are not pressurized because they use molten salt which does not boil, instead of water that needs 2,000 pounds per square inch to keep it from boiling. Also, they just quit working if they melt down — instead of going critical (the China Syndrom). And some can actually burn spent fuel from the current reactors.
Since China, India, Russia, and who knows, will keep building, the safest course is for the US to help produce the safest possible designs, so that those are built. US emissions are now small potatoes, but nukes would be a huge help with going green faster.
Note that Lorna Salzman’s complaints are both fact- and evidence-free. And, her accusation that “using climate change to defend nuclear power has its origins in the climate denial movement,” is a baseless smear.
James Hansen, the #1 environmentalist climate scientist, has long considered nuclear power an essential part of the solution. You can read this in his book, Storms of My Grandchildren. Everyone knows he’s completely honest and dedicated.
Also, I had the privilege of working extensively with the late David MacKay, starting when I was consulting for the British Dept. of Energy and Climate Change and he was their Chief Scientific Advisor. He was a brilliant, vegetarian, bicycle-riding, Cal-Tech physicist — just the nicest person you could ever hope to meet. And totally dedicated to stopping climate change. In his well-loved book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, which analyses every alternative energy source, he concludes that England will have to use nuclear or huge solar arrays in North Africa, of which he was quite skeptical.
This brings me to the one idea that David, I, and about a dozen top climate economists (Stiglitz, etc.) put forward in Global Carbon Pricing: The Path to Climate Cooperation. The idea is novel. A global carbon price is needed, not so much for economic reasons, but because the real climate problem is not technical or even the climate deniers, the huge problem is international cooperation. That requires an “I Will if You Will” agreement and a single price is the best starting point for that. (Google: nature.com MacKay)
”Since China, India, Russia, and who knows, will keep building, the safest course is for the US to help produce the safest possible designs, so that those are built. ”
This might be the case, indeed. NK is a difficult problem. Much uncertainty. Certainly would use if struck first. I don't know about second use policy. That is not my domain. Best if not used at all. Want to get there. How do we get to that future? That is my thinking. Process ideas matter. Not my expertise. We need experts thinking across the world.
Sorry. I don't know about *first use policy. Lol.
Best,
Alex.
Safe nuclear energy transition is good. Nuclear weapons bad. My opinion only. Best,
Alex.
I have to admit that I very much enjoyed the podcast. Two points were most relevant to me - the arc of evolving one's position on complex issues (and how hard that must be when you are in the vortex of it) and how that arc is impacted by a movement going from raising awareness to figuring out how to solve it. Clearly Lorna has a different take on the "how" but I do respect Zion's pivot and her willingness to allow pragmatism into the conversation. The ultimate question of nuclear power's place in the solution seems to still up for debate.
Additonally and on a related but different point, I struggle mightily with the strategies employed in order to attract attention for a given cause. There are just too many 'valid' competing interests. Prioritization/alignment are hyper-critical to make a dent in any collective action issue. Yelling and screaming louder via theatrical/violent one-upmanship seems like a poor methodology to use to determine that prioritization. Science? Institutions? I'd love to hear a better answer on how to get this part right while minimizing the pain, angst and suffering along the way. Perhaps one set of facts might help?!
Utter complete ignorance, devoid of facts, evidence, objectivity. How you chose this uninformed person to comment on nuclear energy...without examining her sources and the people and writings that changed her mind is a great puzzle. As one who has written extensively on this issue and was immersed in the whole movement starting in 1977 I am much more qualified to address this issue...and rebut every one of her points. The new fashion of using climate change to defend nuclear power has its origins in the climate denial movement and in those whose livelihood and personal beliefs depend on the survival of this myth. I challenge you to demand that this person reveal the sources of her information. I think you will be quite surprised....but I wont be. If you want another more informed view, give me the chance to address all ofher false and unsubstantiated opinions...for that's what they are, NOT objective impartial facts. You have been scammed.
Apologies for not having done the full 'work' on your position/background but given a quick Google search I imagine we'd all like to hear it given it directly addresses the substance of the podcast. Not sure you need Yascha/Persuasion to "give you a chance," it seems to me that these comment boards could at least kick off the conversation.
I am happy to expound on any venue, including here. But the best way to do it is for me to answer questions rather than give a lecture. If any readers have questions on specific aspects of nuclear power, or my experience, or anything else I am quite happy to respond.Otherwise people can go to my web site and read a few of my longer articles that were published elsewhere in the 1970s and early 1980s. I appreciate your open minddness and willingness to seek out my sources rather than accepting everyrthing you read as the gospel truth...something almost entirely absent from the long nuclear debate. Thank you.
There are a multitude of competing contentions that are of equal and contrasting concern when contemplating whether nuclear energy can be sustainably implemented for human life and flourishing on planet earth as we adapt to the changes happening in our biosphere. I do not know what the facts are specifically, so I am not ready to take a position, but I am glad that you have posited an (emotional) counter-argument to a debate that immensely important. That is why I say *safe* before making the assertion. I don't know whether or not it is safe, and that is of immense import to anyone thinking about secure sustainability.
Best
Alex.
And to scholars who have found their vocation in the study of these systems, I commend those who are emotionally committed to their perspective, for we need passion when thinking about alternative futures.
Best
Alex.
My "emotional commitment" is to truth, honesty and evidence. The history of nuclear power manifests none of these for those who care to do serious research rather than believing your peer group. Those who promote nuclear energy need to divulge the sources of their opinions as well as any conflict of interest. Nowadays confirmation bias is the rule: believe what conforms to your own prejudices or opinions. The definition of "safe" has yet to be objectively determined. In any event this whole discussion is meaningless inasmuch as nuclear power will never be revived in this country and has little future elsewhere due to costs and public skepticism..which is quite justified regarding any complex technology the failure of which has such enormous negative consequences.
”The definition of ’safe’ has yet to be objectively determined.”
Get to work, friend.
Best,
Alex.
Good podcast! I'm going to do some research of my own because as Zion points out, we need to reduce emissions, and do it faster than renewable will allow. Thanks!