It's Zubrin versus the Greens in this Battle of the Superfighters episode of the Cosmopolicast. Plus, Down with the Sun: Why the world needs nuclear power.
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
I love the Cosmoglob, largely because the articles are for me, a slow reader, multi-day synthesis events. A welcome respite from the hit and run pablum of the "main stream media".
I love the Cosmoglob, largely because the articles are for me, a slow reader, multi-day synthesis events. A welcome respite from the hit and run pablum of the "main stream media".
In recent months, Israel sabotaged a “nuclear site” in Iran for reasons related to Israel’s safety. The term “nuclear site” is what I find when searching the major media. Is “site” a facility that generates electricity via nuclear power or is “site” a place where weapons are created? It turns out that in the case of Iran, “site” is the latter. “Iran’s nuclear program” - another term. Again, the same question- program for energy creation or weapon creation? The media needs to become more precise in wording so the public does not become confused.
This comment is intended for Robert Zubrin, as in his enthusiasm he seems to be painting with too large a brush. Informally, I've heard it called the Nutpicking Fallacy. It's the practice of condemning large groups by choosing convenient quotes and positions from their mix, to display notions that aren't representative of the entire group.
I can find Christians who think slavery is moral, as they believe it is permitted by God. I can find congregations that will largely support that position. This is in the modern context, not just the American South in 1850. I can even find scripture that supports owning people as property, passing them to your children, and your right to beat them (just not to death). It would still be wrong of me to say, "Christians support slavery."
It's possible to be concerned about population pressures without being a eugenicist. It's also possible to believe that humans are capable of both creation AND destruction, it's not an either/or proposition. I know very few people who I think would abandon their humanity in the pursuit of environmental preservation, and I don't believe that attitude is representative of typical conservation intent.
Though I can bring only a layman's perspective to Mr. Zubrin's argument in favor of nuclear power, I find it persuasive. As for his indictment of the Green movement, charging it with being fundamentally anti-human—it's spot on.
No one who's been paying attention to the evolution of postmodern progressivism and leftism can possibly have missed their fascination with race suicide. If that judgement seems harsh, recall Mr. Zubrin's irrefutable point that the policies favored by Green ideologues would visit catastrophe on the most vulnerable human populations. Surely the Greens realize this—but their ideology, in which the whole human race is given the role of the bourgeoisie in Marxist-Leninist ideology, reduces that fact to a footnote. If genocide will "save the planet," well, so be it.
The same hatred of humanity infects fourth-wave feminism, taking the form of a jihad against motherhood and family. Nowadays hardly anyone would criticize a woman who decides not to bear children. But should a member of the Sisterhood become a mother, then describe it as a positive, life-affirming event, the knives come out. Rather obviously, the vision of Woman, untrammeled by childbearing, motherhood, family ties, a free artist of herself, is sheer fantasy. And it's anti-human as well, in its contempt for human nature.
One could argue that such things are not seriously meant, that their proponents would flinch from the brink. It may be so—but even so, anti-humanism is a toxic doctrine. Mr. Zubrin makes a convincing case that Green ideology in power would have disastrous global effects, while in the meantime it deforms the whole debate over climate and energy. I believe that the same can be said of its effects in other areas. Consider, for instance, the lunacy of reviling the nuclear family even as the breakdown of the family generates social pathologies at a steady clip.
Of course the debate over climate change and energy policy must focus on science, technology, political factors. But its cultural component deserves much closer scrutiny. Bad things are going on in that area.
Something I do want push back on Ronald about is in my opinion it is not totally a domestic political decision for a country like Germany to decide it doesn't want any nuclear power based on a domestic political decision but yet wants to remain a member of the EU and NATO in "good standing" all the while as it increases gas imports from Russia to make up for the lost nuclear capacity.
Another comment I want to make is the new Vogtle Nuclear Plant finishing construction in the US this year is coming in at roughly half the cost of the Flamanville and Hinckley Point plants in France and the UK(And delivering almost twice the energy as Flamanville). Now the renewable community and it's supporters like Adam I suspect would say that Vogtle is STILL too expensive but my the question I would through back to Adam, Casey and Ben is what cost premium if any is acceptable for nuclear over solar.
Thirdly for all the talk of fusion fixing all of our problems I suspect if fusion became a reality it would face many of the same public relations and political problems as fission based nuclear. power
I haven't listened to the discussion, but Robert Zubrin's essay is great.
I’m not sure this is the “debate forum” or just the comments section for this latest article on Nuclear Energy. Nevertheless, I’ll post my comments here.
First, I am a proponent of nuclear energy. The demand for reliable electricity will only increase as more and more electric vehicles come on line.
Second, I concur that fossil fuel carbon emissions should decrease for the many reasons that have been outlined over the last several days. The industrial revolution has (with little doubt) sped up the natural occurring warming cycle the earth has been experiencing over the last 15,000 years. We must do what we can, and be smart about it, not reactionary.
Third, solar and wind and hydro all have their place; however, the need for batteries and their components to provide electrical storage and continuity, make the total positive environmental effect suspect, and in need of rigorous scientific study. (Personally from my experience living off the grid, wind and solar always require an on site fossil fuel generator to fill in the energy gaps).
Finally, I spent over two years working on a permanent nuclear waste repository site back during the Reagan administration. Many areas around the country were being scientifically evaluated for safety and practicality. All the proposed locations were geographically isolated, and far from human population centers. The specific site I worked on was the subterranean salt formations in the Panhandle of Texas. Huge mine shafts were drilled and as well as many smaller exploratory cores. Although, it was an interesting study and much data gathered, it soon became apparent that any decision about a permanent waste site would be based on politics not science. I left the project before it’s completion but continued to follow its progress through friends and reports in the media.
Eventually, the funding dried up and the most distant, isolated, location was chosen in Nevada. Nevertheless, Senator Harry Reid used his power and influence to have President Obama cancel the project.
Conclusion, everybody wants electricity but no one wants the plant, waste products, wind and/or solar farms in their backyard. I’ve concluded nuclear power is our best chance out of this energy matrix. But until endless regulatory and environmental battles can be modulated and curtailed, I am disheartened, and increasingly cynical, that any real progress will be made.
In the end, we really are in control of nothing. But we must try. Why? Because that’s what we do with this large evolved brain. We can’t help it. A large asteroid could strike the earth and wipe us all out. This generally accepted theory as to one of the earths great extinction events was only in its infancy during my undergraduate days. The prevailing wisdom at the time was gradual environmental and evolutionary change. Now it seems that rapid change can, and does, occur after perhaps millennia of relative quiet. (Lots of minus points I know).
Aux armes, citoyens !!!
I love the Cosmoglob, largely because the articles are for me, a slow reader, multi-day synthesis events. A welcome respite from the hit and run pablum of the "main stream media".
I love the Cosmoglob, largely because the articles are for me, a slow reader, multi-day synthesis events. A welcome respite from the hit and run pablum of the "main stream media".
In recent months, Israel sabotaged a “nuclear site” in Iran for reasons related to Israel’s safety. The term “nuclear site” is what I find when searching the major media. Is “site” a facility that generates electricity via nuclear power or is “site” a place where weapons are created? It turns out that in the case of Iran, “site” is the latter. “Iran’s nuclear program” - another term. Again, the same question- program for energy creation or weapon creation? The media needs to become more precise in wording so the public does not become confused.
This comment is intended for Robert Zubrin, as in his enthusiasm he seems to be painting with too large a brush. Informally, I've heard it called the Nutpicking Fallacy. It's the practice of condemning large groups by choosing convenient quotes and positions from their mix, to display notions that aren't representative of the entire group.
I can find Christians who think slavery is moral, as they believe it is permitted by God. I can find congregations that will largely support that position. This is in the modern context, not just the American South in 1850. I can even find scripture that supports owning people as property, passing them to your children, and your right to beat them (just not to death). It would still be wrong of me to say, "Christians support slavery."
It's possible to be concerned about population pressures without being a eugenicist. It's also possible to believe that humans are capable of both creation AND destruction, it's not an either/or proposition. I know very few people who I think would abandon their humanity in the pursuit of environmental preservation, and I don't believe that attitude is representative of typical conservation intent.
Though I can bring only a layman's perspective to Mr. Zubrin's argument in favor of nuclear power, I find it persuasive. As for his indictment of the Green movement, charging it with being fundamentally anti-human—it's spot on.
No one who's been paying attention to the evolution of postmodern progressivism and leftism can possibly have missed their fascination with race suicide. If that judgement seems harsh, recall Mr. Zubrin's irrefutable point that the policies favored by Green ideologues would visit catastrophe on the most vulnerable human populations. Surely the Greens realize this—but their ideology, in which the whole human race is given the role of the bourgeoisie in Marxist-Leninist ideology, reduces that fact to a footnote. If genocide will "save the planet," well, so be it.
The same hatred of humanity infects fourth-wave feminism, taking the form of a jihad against motherhood and family. Nowadays hardly anyone would criticize a woman who decides not to bear children. But should a member of the Sisterhood become a mother, then describe it as a positive, life-affirming event, the knives come out. Rather obviously, the vision of Woman, untrammeled by childbearing, motherhood, family ties, a free artist of herself, is sheer fantasy. And it's anti-human as well, in its contempt for human nature.
One could argue that such things are not seriously meant, that their proponents would flinch from the brink. It may be so—but even so, anti-humanism is a toxic doctrine. Mr. Zubrin makes a convincing case that Green ideology in power would have disastrous global effects, while in the meantime it deforms the whole debate over climate and energy. I believe that the same can be said of its effects in other areas. Consider, for instance, the lunacy of reviling the nuclear family even as the breakdown of the family generates social pathologies at a steady clip.
Of course the debate over climate change and energy policy must focus on science, technology, political factors. But its cultural component deserves much closer scrutiny. Bad things are going on in that area.
Something I do want push back on Ronald about is in my opinion it is not totally a domestic political decision for a country like Germany to decide it doesn't want any nuclear power based on a domestic political decision but yet wants to remain a member of the EU and NATO in "good standing" all the while as it increases gas imports from Russia to make up for the lost nuclear capacity.
Another comment I want to make is the new Vogtle Nuclear Plant finishing construction in the US this year is coming in at roughly half the cost of the Flamanville and Hinckley Point plants in France and the UK(And delivering almost twice the energy as Flamanville). Now the renewable community and it's supporters like Adam I suspect would say that Vogtle is STILL too expensive but my the question I would through back to Adam, Casey and Ben is what cost premium if any is acceptable for nuclear over solar.
Thirdly for all the talk of fusion fixing all of our problems I suspect if fusion became a reality it would face many of the same public relations and political problems as fission based nuclear. power