Michael Shellenberger: Nuclear Power Is the Real Green Energy

Рет қаралды 8,531

4 жыл бұрын

Award-winning environmentalist and author Michael Shellenberger joins Wolf Tivy and Ash Milton to discuss ecomodernism, the history of the atomic age, and why nuclear is the real green energy.
On June 30, Harper Collins will publish Michael Shellenberger’s timely new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, which is available for pre-order on Amazon and has received strong pre-publication praise from Harvard’s Steven Pinker, Pulitzer-winning author Richard Rhodes, and climate scientists Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley. Apocalypse Never is a comprehensive debunking of environmental misinformation about everything from climate change and rainforest destruction to nuclear energy and renewables.
PRE-ORDER APOCALYPSE NEVER: www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Nev...
To join the Q&A with our guests and watch Digital Salons live with early access, become a Palladium member: palladiummag.com/subscribe/ Live participation is limited to Palladium members.
SUBSCRIBE TO PALLADIUM: palladiummag.com/subscribe/
PODCAST: palladiummag.com/2020/05/21/d...
TWITTER:
Palladium Magazine: / palladiummag
Michael Shellenberger: / shellenbergermd
Wolf Tivy: / wolftivy
Ash Milton: / miltonwrites
PATREON: / palladium
Palladium Magazine is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and non-partisan journalism project. Donations to Palladium Magazine are tax-deductible in the United States. Sustaining our work and building our community is only possible thanks to the generous contributions of our members. Thank you.

Пікірлер: 73

@fredflintstone8048 4 жыл бұрын

Caring about the environment is good common sense, but it's true that this current crop of science illiterate people who are "Environmentalists" are part of a secular religion. I like the point that people need a belief system and if they don't have a faith in God, they'll replace that faith with a blind faith in something else.

@cliffm6566 3 жыл бұрын

Fred Flintstone Climate Change capital C C is a new religion complete with its own dictatorial theology. Douglas Murray the British writer has discussed this in the context of the collapse of traditional mainstream religion. The theology of Climate Change has developed its own priests adherents deniers and enforcers thru the mass media.

@n1mbusmusic606 3 жыл бұрын

we have 2000 years worth of thorium! there not ready yet. but Thorcon(the best nuclear company on the planet or one of them) produces electricy 24/7 for 1$ a watt, cost competitive with coal. nuclear SMR with an AMAZINg modular design.

@michaelpearl5269 2 жыл бұрын

Can’t say that I like what seemed to me to be an off-putting, almost dismissive-sounding “Yeah, right” responses early on from Wolf Tivy. Michael Shellenberger is always fun and great to watch, listen and read.

@n1mbusmusic606 3 жыл бұрын

Love you Mike!!!!!! keep upt he great work!!!! humanity needs you!!!!! stay safe, get a bodyguard maybe. not kidding.

@watchthe1369 Жыл бұрын

solar for household power, nuclear power for industrial. Wind for those places where sunshine doesn't work. A household can use the ev car battery for back up power. Personally I would prefer a plug in hybrid, with a woodstove for a bit of redundancy for back up power and heating. The Hybird can recharge itsellf if needed which powers the house.... Nuclear power can use the cooling water to boost a lot of industrial heat processes and one of those would be making a "green" diesel for heavy equipment while also generating power. Some nuclear power can also create medical isotopes, or provide material to fuel space craft. the material invested is fairly mundane and equivalent to the building of any hydroelectric dam. It is a smartphone for power generation even if it mainly makes electricity. Solar panels are literally microchips that use rare earths, there may not be enough material to support all the panels we will need much less the environmental costs of mining hundreds of tons to get a few pounds. If coal is bad, how much worse is the potential for that kind of mining for energy. Uranium is problematic for that, BUT thorium may not be, both can be used as nuclear power. Uranium goes into plutonium in any uranium reactor but a Thorium reactor can burn stuff we get mining rare earths (Gasoline is a waste fraction until ICE engines invented) making it cheaper than the uranium. Look up molten salt and LFTR and Thorium reactors.

@watchthe1369 Жыл бұрын

Just a pig meat facility, just a beef facility, etc. China has lots of "Crossing streams" situations. I like the concept of decentralization but when it comes to processing the various "Natural Inputs" I expect segmentation. Any kitchen worker understands "Cross Contamination" that should be avoided.

@stephenburrows4250 4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the discussion - I think the other aspect (aka. hurdle)..., is that nuclear is a political hot potato - anyone currently running on a nuclear agenda will never be elected, any elected government proposing nuclear will currently lose voter support and subsequently their own political existence. Until nuclear evolves to be electorally acceptable it’s going to be slow going to bring it to viable life...

@theamericanopry 3 жыл бұрын

Hot potato, the oven is still hot, do not touch. apnews.com/article/japan-release-fukushima-water-to-sea-2-years-d35637331403c59bbdf61e5ee1f09dbc

@tevya017 Жыл бұрын

To meet the demands of all countries I don't think there's a practical alternative to nuclear energy.

@jimgraham6722 3 жыл бұрын

The central thesis is correct, existential angst and resulting anxieties give rise to a lot of human disfunction, whether it be climate change, energy, pandemic, vaccination and just about every other issue. On this issue, we know beyond reasonable doubt we have a climate problem, we know the cause and we know how to fix it. We also know for future prosperity we need abundant, clean, affordable and safe energy for a world with up to 10 billion humans. Fixing the problem involves getting rid of fossil fuels. Those who purvey fossil fuels and those who profit from fossils will use every measure they can to stop this change.

@tbonemc2118 2 жыл бұрын

Basically the nuclear threat is what influences people on the nuclear industry but no one ever mentions the lives nuclear weapons have saved over the last 70 years through its deterrence alone. Have we seen the end of world wars and major conflicts? Perhaps we should concentrate on what it is doing instead of on what it might do. On top of that there is the effect nuclear energy is already having on the environment and the planet. Considering we used horses for travel a little over a century ago can anyone doubt that nuclear waste will be made harmless and even better ways to use nuclear energy be developed?

@joeschiewe7292 4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this interview and discussion. I found it very interesting that Michael sees so much of the fear of nuclear coming from the loss of faith and suppressed fear of death. I never thought of it that way. I am surprised that he didn't associate more fear with the huge annual multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel energy institutions' direct influence on the world's governments, militaries, industries, media, education systems, and employees. If nuclear is the only solution to endlessly provide and dramatically clean our energy needs - I think the fossil fuel institution which currently benefits from 80+% of world's energy revenues would know this well and would find ways to influence others against nuclear. Michael makes it sound as if it more genetic/human psychi than enviromental factors that drives this fear against the power of the atom. I am sure that it is a mix but maybe genetic needs should be weighed heavily. Perhaps those protecting the current majority energy regime are encouraging this more basic driving human fear through creative channels. I will have to think about this some more. Where can I find his book and similar literature?

@jimgraham6722 3 жыл бұрын

Spot on, I think you have nailed it.

@phamnuwen9442 3 жыл бұрын

So long as governments have the power to regulate industry, large industries will have an incentive to capture and use it against their competition. The solution is to stop granting this power to governments. Demonizing fossil fuels is a dead end. The problem lies in government, or more exactly in the instinct of the general public to support government regulations everywhere. Another way fossil fuels use government regulations to their own advantage is to support renewables which typically requires 100% backup from natural gas.

@jimgraham6722 3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 Fuel and it's monetisation is the nub of the issue. Fossil fuels are easily monetized and very profitable, for renewables the fuel cost is effectively zero, so no profits there, for nuclear the issues are a bit different, the fuel rod fabrication industry can be quite profitable, but the new gen 4 liquid fueled reactors use a chemical fuelling process that promises very inexpensive fuel costs. Needless to say those making big profits in the fuel industry will push back against new comers that threaten those profits.

@watchthe1369 Жыл бұрын

Nuclear Weapons did cause the scale of war to limit itself. Nuclear power can turn the world around since it can be used to produce fertilzer for the African Sahel and Brazillian Amazon region while also providing electricity and maybe biodiesel fuel for farms. The problem is getting governments stable enough to feel safe building a nuclear plant. The molten salt technology might do something for that because if they use thorium it makes the wastye useless for bombs.

@stevenloewen7961 2 жыл бұрын

What do you say about Fukushima!?

@n1mbusmusic606 3 жыл бұрын

James lovelock the greatest climate scientist to have ever lived is very passionately PRO nuclear power!!

@theamericanopry 3 жыл бұрын

Great, but what does he think about washing his dishes? www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers

@n1mbusmusic606 3 жыл бұрын

@@theamericanopry that rebuttle is childish in the extreme and is always used. nuclear power is "racist" is how dumb people try to shut down the convo when they know they are losing. did assholes use it? you bet. of course, the navajo people were fucked over MANY times before it even existed. that DOES NOT invalidate the tool. im sorry hippies. read. a. god. damn. book. thanks bye

@theamericanopry 3 жыл бұрын

@@n1mbusmusic606 I don't think I said "racist". Did I say "racist"? You might want to just talk about the issue, nuclear is not clean. Not only is it harmful during mining but we don't have a safe way to store the waste. Just bury it, is not an option. And when there's a problem like in Fukushima...? apnews.com/article/japan-release-fukushima-water-to-sea-2-years-d35637331403c59bbdf61e5ee1f09dbc

@mamabear8641 4 ай бұрын

There is prestine old growth forest on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in AZ. There are studies about the value of old growth to environmental stability, and carbon capture, etc. Parts, potentially large parts, of this forest have been under threat for want of uranium mining. Historically, unanium mining has already significantly harmed the people, land, and water of the Navajo Reservation. Then to suggest mining that close to the Colorado River, upriver from where Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico draw from the Colorado for agriculture and city needs. In the winter, something like 90% (99%?) of the leafy greens (salad mixes) in the US are grown in Yuma, AZ. This is why nuclear is just too worrisome a concept for myself. So much destruction. Once the plants are built and the need is established more and more mining will have to be opened up. I just can't trust it to not be devastatingly harmful to everything around.

@saddemgargouri 4 жыл бұрын

58:30 India and Pakistan got several stands off and Hot wars including 1 while having nuclear weapons , Like this is the opinion of Experts on the field that region is one of the hottest in the globe nuclear war threat wise , They aren't just '' Dirty Barbarians Mr Shellenberger , they are 2 old enemies in a permanent cold war situation .

@hans3331000 4 жыл бұрын

Pakistan was never supposed to even have nuclear plants.

@factnotfiction5915 3 жыл бұрын

Saddem Gargouri - I believe you misunderstood that Shellenberger was stating this as a sarcastic comment (i.e. he does not believe they are barbarians, but he thinks the US establishment attitude was stupid).

@phamnuwen9442 3 жыл бұрын

Michael is way too dismissive of advanced nuclear. The physics of the most promising Generation IV reactors are such that they will require vastly less raw materials than current technology, while operating at much higher efficiencies. This means a drastically lower cost per kWh. It's true of course that we don't have empirical data from commercial operation of these machines, but that's not a good reason to ignore this huge potential.

@chapter4travels 3 жыл бұрын

People like to dismiss Shellenberger as a shill for the nuclear industry. The fact that he ignores and derides gen.IV nuclear seems to give credence to that claim. LWR's can not produce the high-temperature industrial heat needed to replace fossil fuels outside the electricity sector. He must know this, yet ignores it, kind of proves he is a shill to an industry that is letting itself get leapfrogged by start-ups like Thorcon, Moltex, Terrestrial, Elysium.

@phamnuwen9442 3 жыл бұрын

@@chapter4travels I've never seen any evidence that Michael would have som hidden agenda. I think he just wants to focus on proven technology to start building reactors as fast as possible. Gen IV can be a distraction in that context.

@chapter4travels 3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 "start building reactors as fast as possible." If he was a climate alarmist that position would make sense, but he's not. The only reason I can think of that he's not backing gen. IV is that he is unaware of the potential for cheap industrial heat which LWR's can not produce. In the long term, using MSR's to make electricity will be second or third in line with the other industrial heat uses.

@chapter4travels 3 жыл бұрын

@@phamnuwen9442 Another interesting point is that Shellenberger is brave enough to come right and tell the truth about renewables. They are useless and have no place in the future (Grid level) energy sector. Advocates of MSR's are wimps and always pander to renewables which is the worst possible position to take if you advocate MSR's. A long as the general public thinks there is any possibility that renewables can replace fossil fuels on their own, regardless of how expensive or how much land it would take, they will reject nuclear.

@phamnuwen9442 3 жыл бұрын

@@chapter4travels Gen IV still has to prove their economics. While the physics of a well designed MSR leads me to believe that it can be substantially cheaper than a LWR, there's a lot of weird stuff going on with their business plans, like expecting to be paid to consume waste or produce medical isotopes. If they push these more unproven economic models, I start to suspect that they don't think they can be profitable just selling power and heat. Agree that the nuclear industry should stop pandering to renewables. That's ridiculous and nobody will take them seriously as long as they do.

@n1mbusmusic606 3 жыл бұрын

PLEASE KEEP TALKING MICHAEL I PROMISE THE HIPPIES WILL LISTEN EVENTUALLY. just gotta keep beatin them in the head. its just how it is....god bless you!

@andysedlak1534 4 жыл бұрын

The part of the interview where he describes the corona virus as coming from farms emerging on the edge of forest clearly demonstrates his ignorance on the issue. Such a description would have been accurate many hundreds of years ago.

@cliffm6566 3 жыл бұрын

Andy Sedlak he never said that.

@andysedlak1534 3 жыл бұрын

@@cliffm6566 Listen once again. That is almost verbatim what he said.

@chapter4travels 3 жыл бұрын

@@andysedlak1534 No he never said what you think he said. First, coronaviruses are a generic term of a virus, and what he said related to those generic viruses.

@andysedlak1534 3 жыл бұрын

@@chapter4travels Go back and listen

@chapter4travels 3 жыл бұрын

@@andysedlak1534 I did, he is speaking about unique viruses in general, not the one we have now. Go back and listen. BTW this talk is about nuclear power, not viruses.

@michaelcooney9368 3 жыл бұрын

Didn't like the dodge on geoengineering. Frankly solar radiation management is very undesirable but is inevitable and path of least resistance much more likely than mass adoption of nuclear, particularly mass produced traditional light water reactors. Nuclear has problems rational and I confess irrational. We probably cannot decarbonize without civilization collapsing, no fusion no thorium. Geopolitics and neoliberal baby boomer inertia will freeze out all options to prevent dangerous climate change and allow the developing world to develop. That inevitable option is continued traditional fossil based economy whose I'll effects are buffered with stratospheric areosol injection therapy.

@saddemgargouri 4 жыл бұрын

Shellenberger need to research Vasili Arkipov , while i agree with almost everything he says , he basically go stupid when he talks about nuclear war

@jimseldiesel1362 4 жыл бұрын

What did he say about it? I just started watching it

@saddemgargouri 4 жыл бұрын

@@jimseldiesel1362 6 min in , i don't understand the need he goes into psychological analytic bullshit either , but then he explain it perfectly early on , He isn't in STEM , so that's his style i guess

@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi Жыл бұрын

nuclear weapons are dumb: very expensive and very inefficient, lots of energy on a small surface :( pursuing a nuclear program is the shortest way to bankruptcy